GHULAM HASSAN Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing order No. 32-GR of 1982 dt.12-10-1982 and also the enquiry held by respondent 2 which was concluded vide order dt.1-8-1980.

(2.) It is averred by the petitioner that in the year 1973, he was posted as Division Officer, Police Division, Nageen (Hazratbal), Ghulam Hassan Sultan, lodged a complaint against him before the then Chairman, Anti-Corruption Commission, Srinagar, alleging therein that the said respondent had obtained an order in terms of Sec. 202, Cr. P.C. directing the petitioner to hold enquiry under law but he demanded Rs. 900/- for doing the job. This respondent further alleged that he paid the said amount in two installments of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 500/- to the petitioner but despite taking the said bribe, the petitioner did not conduct the enquiry.

(3.) The petitioner has further contended that on the basis of the complaint, preliminary investigation against him was conducted by the Dy.S.P. Anti-Corruption Organisation, Kashmir, who held the case not proved against him. This report was not accepted by the Commission which suo motu called for the record of the case and the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 12-7-1974. He pleaded not guilty to the said charge whereupon the prosecution was asked to lead evidence. Both the sides then led evidence. During the course of these proceedings, the JandK Govt. Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962 was substituted by the JandK Govt. Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975 and the case was transferred to the single Member Tribunal (Dist. and Sessions Judge, Srinagar). This tribunal initiated fresh proceedings and he was served with articles of charges. He was, however, not given opportunity of being heard before framing of such charges against him. He was also not provided with the copies of the documents and the statements of the witnesses which were sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against him at that stage or at any stage subsequent to it. He, however, again pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution produced respondent 5 complainant and two witnesses Mohd. Qasim and Mohd. Amin Butt. While respondent 5 did not support the articles of charge, in his statement, the other two witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support the articles of charge or the statement of respondent 5. The prosecution also did not produce the other two witnesses, namely, Ghulam Mustaffa and Ghulam Rasool Butt. The single Member Tribunal, respondent 2, vide order dt.1-8-1980, found him guilty and recommended that the amount of gratification received by the petitioner be recovered from his pay and he be demoted to next lower rank for a period of three years. The enquiry proceedings had, in the meantime, been transferred from the single Member Tribunal (Distt. and Sessions Judge) to the newly appointed single Member Tribunal, Anti-Corruption (Non-gazetted), Srinagar. Subsequently vide notice dt. 28-11-1980, he was informed that on the basis of the enquiry and report made by respondent 2, the Governor had arrived at a provisional conclusion that the petitioner be demoted to the next lower rank for a period of three years and that an amount of Rs.900/- be recovered from his pay. He was called upon to show cause as to why the said punishment be not imposed upon him. He submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice wherein apart from the other grounds he pleaded that the enquiry conducted by respondent 2 was defective and the conclusion arrived at by the said Tribunal was based on no evidence. The Governor then issued order No. 32-GR (supra) imposing punishment on him thereby demoting him to the next lower rank for a period of three years and also recovery of Rs. 900/- from his pay. According to the petitioner, the conduct of the complainant had been inconsistent from the very beginning and he made different versions before the Anti-Corruption Organisation. The version of the complainant was not supported by any evidence on the record and the Tribunal has been unduly biased in the case and influenced by the consideration of eradication of corruption. He was punished on the sole testimony of the complainant.