LACHHI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition made by Lachhi Ram petitioner under V. 32 2 -A of the Constitution of India as applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for grant of a writ of Mandamus directing the non -applicant State to treat the petitioner as having ever continued in service without any break and being still in service as a Patwari and free of all stigma involved in the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Revenue Minister. Further it is prayed that the non -applicants be directed not to give effect to their orders of punishment and dismissal and to pay the salary due to the petitioner from the date of his first suspension.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner briefly stated is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari in the year 2005 under the orders of the then Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla. Some complaints were received against him by the Deputy Revenue Minister and he ordered the Director, Land Records, to hold enquiry in regard to the complaints agairist the patwari, petitioner. The Director, Land Records framed 8 charges against the patwari and sought his explanation in regard to these charges. He then transferred this case to the Deputy Commissioner Baramulla for further enquiry. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated the 28th Baisakh 2011 found that certain charges of misconduct, carelessness and corruption were proved against the Patwari and he awarded him punishment by disallowing his increments for two years and transferring him to Karnah. The Patwari who was under suspension was reinstated and the period of suspension was treated as leave of whatever kind due to him. The report of the Deputy Commissioner reached the Deputy Revenue Minister after about five months and he found that the charges which were proved" against the patwari were very serious and the punishment awarded was inadequate. He by his order dated 7 -9 -2011, the relevant extract of which is as follows, dismissed the petitioner from service from the date of his first suspension: The punishment proposed by the D. C. is grossly inadequate and is calculated to encourage corruption instead of checking it. It was perhaps with this idea that he himself reinstated the Patwari although I had given clear instructions to the Commissioner that an officer other than one from Baramulla shall make the inquiry and that the Commissioner will give the final decision. Considering the merits of the case in detail I am of the view that nothing short, of dismissal will meet the requirements of justice." The petitioner appealed against this order to the Cabinet but was unsuccessful. He has filed this writ petition.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that inquiry under Rule 32 of the Kashmir Civil Service Rules was not properly conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and he was wrongly punished by him. The Deputy Revenue Minister was not competent to award punishment to the petitioner as the petitioner was already punished by the Deputy Commissioner. Lastly it is averred that the Deputy Revenue Minister had no authority to award punishment under the K. C. S. Rules, which have the force of law.