RAJ KUMAR FOTEDAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

(2.) While the petitioner was discharging his duties as Junior Engineer, an FIR No. 09/2013 came to be registered on 06.02.2003 in the Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu for alleged commission of offences under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 161 RPC against him. Investigation in the FIR led to the filing of the charge-sheet before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Judge, Jammu. During the pendency of the investigation in the FIR, the petitioner was suspended by the respondent vide Government order No. 06-PDD of 2004 dated 12.01.2004. The trial remain pending almost for a period of seven years before it ended in acquittal in terms of the judgment dated 27.10.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption. Notwithstanding the acquittal of the petitioner by the trial court, the respondents decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and also took a decision to file a criminal acquittal appeal against the judgment dated 27.10.2010 passed by the trial court.

(3.) Pursuant to the decision taken by the Administrative Department, Sh. P. K. Puri, Superintending Engineer, Maintenance and Rural Electrification Circle, Jammu was nominated as enquiry officer for conducting the requisite departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It appears that the Superintending Engineer, who was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner, appointed a committee of three officers to conduct a detailed departmental enquiry against the petitioner and submit a report within two weeks. This was, however, immediately objected by the Chief Engineer, who vide his communication No. CEJ/Court/2077-82 dated 27.11.2011 advised the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry himself and not delegate the said function to any person or committee. It was also conveyed to the Superintending Engineer (enquiry officer) that the constitution of the committee by him for conducting enquiry was illegal and had no sanctity in law. In the meanwhile, the committee appointed by the Superintending Engineer taking note of the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of the petitioner and holding some enquiry, virtually exonerated the petitioner of any misconduct. Since the Superintending Engineer, who was appointed as enquiry officer, did not carry the mandate of the directions issued by the Administrative Department, as such, the report prepared by the committee constituted by him was not accepted and a decision was taken to hold a formal departmental enquiry against the petitioner.