R C PURI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is Block Development Officer and was charged of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 11,720 by alleged misuse of his official position. Accordingly FIR No. 65/94 under Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered against him and pursuant thereto he was ordered to be prosecuted vide Govt. order No. 29 of 1996 dated 11.6.1996. This order carried an endorsement to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Agriculture Production Deptt., requiring him to take further action against him under rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, control & appeal) Rules, 1956, relating to his suspension. In Compliance thereto he was placed under suspension Vide Govt. Order No. 338 -Agri of 1996 dated 28.6.1996, allegedly passed by the commissioner/ Secretary and not the Government.

(2.) PETITIONER challenges the FIR and two orders. His case is that FIR disclosed no offence against him and that sanction for his prosecution was granted by the Government in the administrative department, Viz. Agriculture Production Department and so was the order of suspension required to be passed by the Govt. and not the Commissioner/Secretary. According to him, the Whole action was liable to be quashed as it suffered from lack of jurisdiction.

(3.) IN the objections filed by the state respondent, it is asserted that the action taken was competent .It is made out that the suspension order itself indicated that it was passed by the Govt. Mr. Shukla, (learned Govt. Advocate, who was asked to produce the relevant record, however, submitted that the order of suspension was passed by the commissioner/Secretary and was later approved by the concerned Advisor. He justified the order granting prosecution and the FIR pursuant whereto petitioner was facing trial in the criminal court.