STATE OF J&K Vs. JOGINDER PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal No. 43/2000 filed by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in SWP No. 652/1983 whereby Govt. order No. 8 -GR of 1983 dated 24.8.1983,dismissing the respondent writ petitioner from service, has been set aside, giving liberty to the State -appellant for holding a fresh inquiry. The respondent, writ petition has also filed LPA No. 40/1999,being aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent of giving liberty to the State for holding fresh enquiry.

(2.) THE respondent, writ petitioner, was a Patwari in the year 1976 -77. A complaint against him for having obtained Rs. 500/ -as illegal gratification from one Mohd Husssain, was entertained and proceedings were initiated by the Anti -corruption Tribunal against him u/s 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975,(hereinafter called the Act of 1975). The Tribunal after enquiry concluded that the charge against the writ petitioner stood established, so it made the following recommendations by its order dated 31.12.1980: - "On this finding I would recommend that the following punishment be imposed on the answering public servant Sh.Joginder Parkash the then Patwari of Halqa Sohal,Tehsil Udhampur: - (i) That he be dismissed from the Govt. service; (ii) That the amount of Rs. 500/ - be recovered from him and got paid to the complainant Mohd Husaain; (iii) That he be disqualified for holding any public or elected office."

(3.) THE recommendations of the Tribunal were accepted by the competent authority and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed by the order impugned in the writ petition. The petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal inter alia on the ground that he was prejudiced in making his defence to the show cause notice issued to him before imposition of penalty as he had not been furnished with copies of the proceedings as well as copy of the report of the Tribunal and that even his reply to the show cause notice was not considered before passing the order of dismissal. Learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of the writ petitioner and held that the dismissal order was bad for non -furnishing of the report of the Inquiry Officer.