MOHD ASLAM LAIGAROO Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under section 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated: 8.7.1998 passed in SWP No. 1068 of 1998. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the appellant wherein he had prayed for staying the order whereby he had been suspended from holding the charge of Director, Estates, Srinagar. The appellant contends that the rejection of the application amounts to the refusal of some of the reliefs which had been prayed for in the main writ petition.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that vide Govt. order No. 705 -GAD of 1997 dated: 30.5.1997, the appellant herein alongwith other nine officials of different departments were suspended pending investigation by the Vigilance Organisation with the allegations of disproportionate assets accumulated by them. The order is reproduced hereunder: -

(3.) THE appellant has challenged the order of suspension by filing writ petition (SWP No. 1068/98) wherein relief in the nature of writ of certiorari was prayed for quashing the impugned order. Further, relief of writ of mandamus was prayed commanding the respondents to post the petitioner at an appropriate place which should be commensurate with his status. In the writ petition, the order was challenged on the grounds that it was passed in contravention of rule 31 of the Classification, Control, and Appeal Rules, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as CCA Rules). The, instructions appended to the rule are supplementary in nature and character and they have statutory force but they were not followed. It was also pleaded that the police officers who conducted the investigation including the house search were not competent to do so. The case of the petitioner was not reviewed by respondents -or any competent authority and thus there was a violation of the mandates of rule 31 of the CCA Rules. The order of suspension was passed without application of mind and on extraneous considerations. When the investigation against the appellant was being conducted, the passing of the impugned order in the mid -stream was without jurisdiction. The impugned order was not passed in the public interest. The continuation in service of the appellant was neither prejudicial to the investigation of the case nor it would have caused a drain on the public exchequer.