AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter was liable to be disposed ofbya Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sayedan Shaffi's case (1997 SLJ 178) but learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Baig, sought to draw a distinction between the two cases and prayed for moulding the relief in this case by passing
appropriate orders.
Petitioner, a senior scale KAS Officer, was posted as Distt. Development Commissioner, Anantnag, some time in December 1992. He claims
that despite his preoccuaption in putting the district administration back on rails, he came across some cases of fradulent drawal of public money
and took prompt action by placing two Block Development Officer (BDOs) of Kulgam and Qazigund, under suspension. He also reported the
matter to higher authorities including the Chief Secretary and requrested for action. But while he was doing all this, he was stunned to hear that he
was declared absconder on 20.6.1993. His residence was raided by Vigilance sleuths on 20.6.1993. Later some FIRs were lodged by the police
on 24.6.1993 in which he was made a coaccused and charged of the conspiracy in some financial irregularities and negligence. He was eventually
dismissed from service by Govt. Order NO. 533GAD of 1993 dated 25.6.1993 passed by the Governor in exercise of the powers under Sec.
126(2)(c) of the State Constitution.
Respondent's case is that petitioner was negligent in the discharge of his duties and had brought discredit to his service by committing serious
ommissions in connivance with his subordinate officers which had caused huge financial loss to public exchequer.
Rival versions apart, there is no gainsaying that petitioner's dismissal from service on dispensing with the inquiry in terms of Sec. 126(2)(c)
cannot sustain in the face of settled legal position lately capsuled by the Division Bench Judgement in Sayden Shaffi's case. Because even if it be
assumed that he was facing charge of misappropriation or negligence, still there was nothing to show that it was inexpedient to hold an inquiry
against him in the interests of security of the state.
That should have set the controversy at rest but for Mr. Baig's insistance that petitioner's case would not attract the directions passed by the DB
and that Staterespondent could not be required to hold departmental inquiry against him or to prosecute him. He urged that petitioner constituted a
separate class and was head and shoulder above others involved in various acts of omission and commission in Anantnag district at relevant time.
So much so that he was a complainant in the matter and instrumental in bringing the issue into focus. It is an irony that instead of being rewarded for
this, he was made a scapegoat, pursued in a hot chase and after three years suffering involving mental torture, agony and social stigma was given a
clean chit by the same vigilance organisation which had projected him a bad man from the rooftops.
Mr. Baig produced a certificate by the Deputy Director (Prosecution Wing) dated 15.7.1997 to show that petitioner was innocent and was
framed to precepitate his ouster from service. He urged that now that the substratum of the charge against him had evaporated and that
Staterespondent had reinstated five similarly situated officers in service, he could not be subjected to further suffering by a departmental inquiry and
deserved equal treatment.
The matter exposed a sorry state of affairs and raised issued of public importance beyond the narrow confines of petitioners reinstatement in
service or otherwise. It is a matter of record that petitioner was a high ranking officer of the State and that he was brought within the vigilance net
on a charge of criminal conspiracy for defrauding the exchequer. His house was raided and God knows, if an seizure was made. But the Vigilance
action was allegedly so widely publicised through electronic and print media that he was tried on medical in a way. He must have naturally gone
through hell and suffered incalculable harm to his reputation, health and service prospects. It must have naturally attached a social stigma to him
also.
After petitioner had gone through all this, the Vigilance Organisation had come out with a clear chit for him today from where. This is beyond all
comprehension and defies all logic and throws up issues of general concern. It is inexplicable that Vigilance Organisation should have taken three
long years to end up with dam =quib. Is it because of organisation's adventurism, inaction, inertia, inefficiency or expediency? Whatever be the
reason, who compensates petitioner for the untold misery and sufering allegedly undergone by him. Should not the organisation feel both guilty and
accountable for such ""misadventures"" which could play havoc with an accused employee's future and family. Should it enjoy the license to act
arbitrarily and take to show biz ways in the name of eradicating corruption.
This is not to suggest that the Vigilance Organisation should become a mute spectator in cases involving embezzlement/ misappropriation of
public funds. But, it, requires to be underscored that it cannot embark on a hit and run spree or showmanship of sorts. An accused is. presumed to
be innocent till proved guilty by a competent court. He cannot be declared guilty first on media and then declared innocent through a ministerial fiat
in the shape of a certificate. He enjoys a fundamental right of speedy trial which includes expeditious investigation under Article 21 of the
Constitution. It is both reprehensible and unpardonable that Vigilance Organisation should carry on an investigation for years on and finally end up
certifying an acused to be innocent. A strange way of working indeed. If the organisation was unable to establish a case against an accused, it wa
required to close the case against him at the earliest. The question of dragging its feet and prolonging the investigation in violation of a citizen's
fundamental right could not be countenanced. After all, an investigating agency cannot assume the role and status of a super chamber to convert
innocence into guilt and vice versa and to indulge in a witch hunt and gimmick of sorts in a system governed by the rule of law. It is true that it was
entrusted with an onerous task, but, it should realise its role and devise efficient and scientific methods to deal with the problem of corruption which
was creeping in the society at a alarming rate.
In the present case, the organisation first volunteered to produce the record of investigation before the court, but later with held it and to stop it
all, submitted a certificate by its Deputy Director (Prosecution) to show that the petitioner was all innocent. This type of conduct can only raise
eyebrows and suspicion.
All things considered, I allow this petition and pass following directions:
That impugned Order NO. 533GAD of 1993 dated 25.6.1993 shall stand quashed
That with a view to minimise any minuse of authority and to eliminate scope for any witchhunt or victimisation, Commissioner of Vigilance
Organisation and all its concerned functionaries are restrained from publicising any action involving an accused Govt. employee unless he was
appropriately challaned and charge sheeted before a competent court of law
The Organisation shall complete investigation against an accused within three months from the date he was booked. If it is impracticable to do
so for some unavoidable cause, its competent authority shall record reasons to justify the delay. If such investigation was not completed within six
months, it shall entitle the accused to seek quashment of investigation to enforce his right of sppedy justice
The Chief Secretary of the State respondent shall take appropirate adminK istrative steps to carry out these directions within one month from
the date of B receipt of this order.