AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.S. Mahra, Member J
According to the applicant a complaint was made by one A.Ahmad Wani on 5.6.2020. On the basis of the said complaint the respondents has passed a suspension order dated 25.5.2022 against the applicant. He further submits that the respondents were under the legal obligation to review the suspension order after 90 days as per rules and this has not been done by the respondents as per the law laid down by the Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on the basis of the said complaint an enquiry was ordered by the respondents. The District Vigilance Officer vide report dated 28.11.2020 submitted a detailed enquiry report to the Director, School Education, Kashmir. A bare perusal of the said enquiry report reveals that the said complaint is by a pseudo person and the allegations levelled against the applicant were baseless, without any evidence and proof and the said allegation was rejected.
The respondents have filed their preliminary reply. As per the said reply the complaint against the applicant was with regard to the misappropriation of the fund allocated for construction of building in Badgam and for accepting the bribe amounting to Rs.50,000/-.
Heard learned counsels for both parties.
The enquiry report submitted by the District Vigilance Officer dated 28.11.2020 reads as under :
“I also tried to contact the complainant namely some Gh. Rasool Bhat R/o Ompora but despite all my efforts could not trace him as he has not provided his contact details of specific location and it appears that he is some pseudo person. From all the above what I understood is that most of the allegations levelled against the HA seem to baseless without any evidence and proof. The complained official has come up upright in the matter. My suggestion in the matter is that the levelled allegations against the official be rejected outrightly. Hence this report is submitted for further perusal.”
The respondents have earlier ordered an enquiry against the applicant and the District Vigilance Officer after enquiry submitted a report as above. When an enquiry was earlier ordered and the District Vigilance Officer came to a conclusion that there is nothing against the applicant and he exonerated the applicant from all the charges, this is not legally sustainable under the law to suspend the applicant on the basis of the same complaint and make a fresh enquiry on the same charges. It is admitted position that the suspension order dated 25.5.2022 has not been reviewed by the respondents though they were under legal obligation to review the said suspension order after 90 days.
In view of the above, the suspension order is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with immediate effect. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the applicant as per law, if sufficient material is made available against the applicant and prima facie case is made out.
With this observation, the OA is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.