SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER No. MJ/SC/ADM/13 -14/338 -42 dated 25th January, 2014 where under petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent No. 2 (Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu) is sought to be quashed, with a further prayer for restraining the respondent No. 2 from interfering with the performance of the duties of the petitioner as Food Safety Officer as appointed under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. According to learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No. 2 is neither the appointing authority nor disciplinary authority. Petitioner has been appointed as Food Inspector by the Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 vide SRO - -39 notified on 19 -01 -2001, thereafter vide notification dated 08 -12 -2012, petitioner has been appointed as Food Safety Officer by the Commissioner of Food Safety, J&K, Jammu in exercise of power conferred under Sub -Section (1) of section 37 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Supporting this contention, relied on the judgment, rendered in SWP No. 1707/2005 dated 29 -04 -2009 in case Parmod Kumar v. Sate of J&K and ors.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed detailed objection wherein it has been specifically projected that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector on 13 -09 -1991 in the Respondent Corporation. On the recommendation of the Department Promotion Committee was appointed as food Inspector on 11 -12 -2000. Earlier Food Inspectors and other officers were assigned the job of Food Inspectors under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thereafter on repeal of the said Act, they were appointed as Food Safety Officers under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, copy of the service book as annexed with the objections is reflective of the same position, therefore, petitioner for all purposes is the employee of the Municipal Corporation, therefore, Respondent No. 2 is competent to place the petitioner under suspension.

(3.) UNDER section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the petitioner has been appointed as Food Inspector. Therefore, vide SRO 39, notified on 19 -01 -2001, the petitioner, as Food Inspector of Municipal Corporation, has been assigned local area of Jammu Municipal Council where he was already posted as Food Inspector, same was required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, so as to enable him to perform the duties and to exercise the powers under section 10 of the said Act. Such appointment is not to be termed as fresh appointment.