Kapil Dev Singh vs State Of J&K And Others

Rajnesh Oswal, J

CM No. 3960/2014

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The documents annexed with the application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

SWP No. 2957/2014

Respondent No. 6 has been arrayed by the petitioner in her personal capacity. On request of petitioner's counsel, the name of respondent No. 6 is deleted from the array of respondents and SDM Nowshera shall figure as respondent No. 6 in the list of respondents as his/her official capacity.

With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

The present petiton has been filed by the petitioner for quashing enquiry report bearing No. SDM/NSR/Estt/2014-15/370 dated 31.07.2014 submitted by the respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 5 and communication dated 30.09.2014 issued by respondent No. 5 by virtue of which he has forwarded the aforesaid enquiry report to the Director School Education, Jammu-respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also sought direction for directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Middle School Badhanoo.

It is stated that the respondent No. 7 had earlier filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2209/2010 whereby challenge to the engagement order of the petitioner was thrown and this Court vide order dated 26.11.2013 while disposing of the said writ petiton, had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, respondent No. 5 herein to conduct an enquiry with respect to the actual residence of the respondent No. 7 as well as the petitioner. It is further stated that respondent No. 5 instead of conducting the enquiry himself, directed the respondent No. 6 to do the same and the respondent No. 6 has furnished the enquiry report and in the said report there are inherent contradictions.

Reply stands filed by the respondents.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their reply have stated that the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No. 5 had appointed the respondent No. 6 as Enquiry Officer and after holding the enquiry submitted the enquiry report to respondent No. 5 and as per enquiry report, Sanjeev Kumar, respondent No. 7 herein is the resident of Mohra Badanoo, Village, Brevi and the petitioner ancestral's home is in Village, Brevi and is presently residing at Village, Dharmsal, Tehsil Kalakote, District, Rajouri. It is further submitted that the enquiry report conducted by the respondent No. 5 is in accordance with law, therefore, the same cannot be questioned.

Respondent No. 7 in his reply has stated that the enquiry report was submitted by the respondent No. 6 after perusing all the relevant documents and more importantly those provided by the petitioner himself. It is further stated in the reply that there is admission on the part of the petitioner also that he has been residing in Village, Dharamsal.

Mr. Achal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that there are inherent contradictions in the enquiry report submitted by the respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 5 as in the report, it has been stated by the respondent No. 6 that the Village, Brevi and Village Badanoo are two separate revenue villages and at the same time the Enquiry Officer stated that there is Mohra Badanoo, Village, Brevi. Mr. Sharma further submits that the petitioner has been residing temporarily in Dharamsal due to threat perception as his Uncle was killed by the militants. Mr. Sharma further argued that this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner to enquire about the matter but he delegated the enquiry to respondent No. 6, that is contrary to the direction passed by this Court.

On the contrary, Mr. Manik Mahey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 has vehemently argued that the Enquiry Officer has furnished the report to respondent No. 5 on the basis of the material available on record, that also included the record produced by the petitioner himself. Mr. Mahey further submits that there is no threat perception to the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the official respondents has fairly stated that this is dispute between two private individuals so an appropriate order may be passed.

Heard and perused the record.

A perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 26.11.2013 in the writ petition bearing SWP No. 2209/2010 filed by the respondent No. 7 herein, this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct the enquiry regarding the actual place of residence of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 7 herein and simultaneously, the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri was directed to forward the enquiry report to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein i.e. Director, School Education, Jammu and Chief Education Officer, Rajouri respectively after the completion of the enquiry.

A perusal of the enquiry report dated 31.07.2014 reveals that there are two separate revenue Village Brewi and Village, Badanoo. Simultaneously, the enquiry report also reveals that the respondent No. 7 is the resident of Mohra Badanoo Village Brevi. It is not understandable when there are two separate revenue villages, namely, Brevi and Badanoo, then how the respondent No. 7 can be shown as resident of Mohra Badanoo, Village Brevi where, as per enquiry report, Village, Badanoo is a separate revenue village.

This Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are inherent contradictions in the enquiry report submitted by the SDM Nowshera, respondent No. 6 herein, as such this enquiry report is quashed and the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, respondent No. 5 is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry pursuant to the direction dated 26.11.2013 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petiton bearing SWP No. 2209/2010. It is made clear that the respondent No. 5 shall conduct the enquiry personally.

Till the enquiry is completed and the report is submitted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the status of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion over the merits of the case.

Disposed of.