LEKH RAJ Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment all these writ petitions are proposed to be taken up together and are being disposed of accordingly because they raise identical legal pleas. Facts of each writ petition are being separately given hereinbelow :

(2.) Petitioner questions Government Order No. 03-GAD(Vig) of 1998 dated 9th January 98. He figures at Serial No. 2 and his suspension has been ordered under Rule 31(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). According to petitioner his suspension ordered vide impugned Annexure "C" to the writ petition is liable to be quashed and set aside, because prior to the registration of the FIR investigation had been undertaken by the Vigilance Organisation and Verification Report was submitted by the Inspector, Vigilance Organisation which is dated 27.12.1996. A recommendation was made in this report that since allegations could not be substantiated, therefore enquiry be closed as not proved. It seems that this report was not accepted and thereafter matter seems to have been further examined and then challan has been filed against the petitioner before the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Jammu. A copy of the Challan is attached with the objections as Annexure "RI". Other ground urged is that the filing of Challan after institution of the present writ petition was with a view to circumvent the judicial process in this writ petition. Another argument urged is that as per Rule 31 a person could be kept under suspension for three months. Thereafter no steps have been taken as per government instructions attached to the said rule. In this background relief is claimed by the petitioner.

(3.) In this case petitioner is aggrieved by Government Order No. 705-GAD of 1997 dated 30.5.1997 on the subject "suspension of officers" and his name figures at Serial No. 7. Main thrust of the petitioner's case is that Final Report Part-I was submitted by Shri R.K. Chalotra, Inspector Vigilance Organisation, wherein it was recommended that no case of disproportionate assets was made out against the petitioner and he further recommended the investigation to be dropped and closed as not proved. This report was submitted by the Investigating Officer for perusal by the higher authorities. In this case record was summoned from the respondents which has been produced by Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for them.