MANMOHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals raise common question of law and were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals fall within a narrow compass and may immediately be stated.

(2.) BOTH the appellants were separately charge -sheeted for different misconducts allegedly committed by them. Enquiries were constituted against them under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Old Act Under this Act, enquiry into the misconduct was to be conducted by the Anti Corruption Commission, constituted under section 5 of the Act. The enquiries in question were entrusted to such Commission. During the tendency of the enquiries, the Old Act was replaced by the Jammu & Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the New Act. Under the new Act the enquiry into misconduct was to be conducted by Anti Corruption Tribunal constituted under section 6 of the Act. The two enquiries mentioned hereinbefore were continued against the two appellants under the new Act before the Tribunal constituted under the said Act. The Tribunal returned verdict of guilt in each enquiry proceeding and sent its reports to the Governor recommending the punishment to be imposed against each appellant. The Governor issued separate notice to each appellant annexing therewith a copy of the Tribunals report and requiring him to show cause against the proposed punishment indicated in the notice. Each appellant submitted his reply and thereafter separate order of punishment was passed in each case. Appellant Manmohan Sharma filed writ petition No. 349 of 1980 and appellant Rajinder Sharma filed writ petition No. 348 of 1980 to challenge the order of punishment passed against each. The only ground on which the orders of punishment were challenged was that the notice requiring the appellants to show cause against the proposed punishment was not in conformity with the requirements of section 17 (6) of the new Act and therefore the order of punishment was vitiated.

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, Shri J.P. Singh is that the show cause notice was issued by the Governor without satisfying himself about the correctness or otherwise of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the punishment proposed by it. According to the learned counsel the acquisition of the satisfaction mentioned herein was a condition precedent to "the issue of notice and since that condition was not satisfied in either of the two cases, the notice and the punishment, both were invalid. In this context the learned counsel invites our attention to the difference in the language of section 17(6) of the new Act and section 17(5) of the old Act, which also provided for opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. In support of his submissions the learned counsel has cited two single Judge decisions of this court. The first decision was rendered by B.A. Khan J in Dr. Inder Prakash Gupta vs State of J&K and others, 1991 KLJ: 537 and the other was rendered by A M Mir J in Bal Krishan and others vs State of J&K, Writ petition No. 382 of 1982 decided on 27 -1 -1993.