MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE TH. ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Accountability Commission established under Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Act, 2002, has power to suo-moto direct investigation, inquiry or proceedings against a public functionary under the Act, is the question that calls for an answer in the writ petitions on hand. In all the petitions, the Accountability Commission (hereinafter, the Commission) has suo-moto initiated proceedings under the Act against the petitioners.

(2.) Before an effort is made to find answer to the pivotal question on which fate of writ petitions on hand hinges, it would be appropriate to make a brief survey of background facts.

(3.) Shri Mohd. Shafi Indrabi filed a complaint being No.J- 115/2006 before Accountability Commission under Section 11 of the Act, against Smt. Sunali Kumar, Principal Secretary Health and Medical Education Department and Ranjit Kour, Ex- Principal/tutor of AMT School, Srinagar, alleging financial irregularities by the respondents while running affairs of AMT School, Srinagar and violation of rules in making admissions in AMT, School. The Commission on 3rd March 2006, on perusal of the complaint, record made available by the parties and after hearing counsel for the parties opined that the complaint disclosed a fit case in which regular inquiry was required to be conducted not only against the respondents but also against Smt. Suman Lata Bhagat Minister for Health and Medical Education present petitioner, Mr. Abdul Gani Sofi, Minister for Health and Medical Education, Shri Vikas Bhagat - PRO of Minister for Health and Medical Education, and Mst. Halima, Principal AMT, School, Srinagar successor in office of Smt. Ranjit Kour respondent in the complaint. The Commission, accordingly, arrayed Smt. Suman Lata Bhagat and three others as respondents 3 to 6 in the complaint and directed a notice to be issued to the newly added respondents. Smt. Suman Lata Bhagat petitioner- herein questions the jurisdiction of the Commission to take suo- moto action against the petitioner on the ground that the Commission does not have any such power and jurisdiction. Petitioner, accordingly, seeks quashment of order dated 3rd March, 2006, whereby she and three others were arrayed as respondents 3 to 6 and regular inquiry initiated against them.