AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. No.,Name,Name of Agency
1,Miss Raja Bano D/o Ab. Khaliq Sofi R/o Mazhama,Narbal
2,Miss Raja Banoo D/o Habibullah R/o Qazibagh,Khansahib
3,Miss Zarna Rasool D/o Gh. Rasool R/o Kanihama,Beerwah
4,Gulshan Ara D/o Gh. Mohi-ud-din R/o Budgam,Budgam
5,Qamarul Nazir D/o Nazir Ahmad R/o Chanpora,B.K. Pora
6,Shahida Khurshid (name changed to Shahida Mir ostensibly) D/o Khurshid R/o Chadoora,Chadoora
7,Masooda Jan D/o Mohammad Yousuf R/o Chari sharief,Nagam
that before demoting her from the post Mukhia Savika to Gram Savika , an enquiry in terms of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India was",,
required to be conducted. Because by promoting her from Gram Savika to Mukhi Savika , a legal right has accrued to her , which cannot be taken",,
away without adopting due course of law .,,
Article 311 of Constitution Of India reads as under :-,,
Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State",,
(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post,,
under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by a authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed,,
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been,,
informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges Provided that,,
where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the",,
evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on,,
the penalty proposed:,,
Provided further that this clause shall not apply,,
(a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a,,
criminal charge; or,,
(b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be",,
recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or",,
(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not",,
expedient to hold such inquiry,,
(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is",,
referred to in clause ( 2 ), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank",,
shall be final.,,
Bare perusal of this article, it is manifest that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil",,
service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an,,
inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of,,
those charges. But there is exclusion clause also which says that, this type of inquiry can be dispensed with against employee who falls",,
under clauses (a, b and c) of article 311 (2) of constitution of India.",,
In present case bare perusal of initial appointment order 660-Agri- of 1989 dated 13.6. 1989 issued by Director Rural Dev. Deptt.,,
Kashmir, it is evident that the name of petitioner stands at serial no.6 whereas name of respondent no. 7 stands at serial no.1, so",,
petitioner is far junior to respondent no.7 ; petitioner was promoted to Mukhi Savika vide order no. 196 ?RD of 2011 date by,,
22.9.2011 by Commissioner Secretary against available post of APO in DRDA Budgam, thereby ignoring respondent no.7 and four",,
more employees, who are senior to her in grading list.",,
Respondent no. 7 , when came to know about promotion of petitioner as Mukhi Savika , she made various representations to",,
Minister concern , Commissioner concern and Director Vigilance; a full-fledged inquiry was conducted by Director Rural",,
Development ,who recommended to Commissioner secretary on 8.9.2012 for reconsideration and rescinding of order of promotion",,
of petitioner; in inquiry it has been held that petitioner has deceived the Administrative Department by providing fictions /fake,,
communication /letter no. DRDK/Esst/49 /Gnl/ 2006 /29325 dated -4.4.2009 under fake signature of Director. Even office of,,
DRDA Budgam decided the representation of respondent no.7 herein after conducting detail inquiry and Joint Director (p) CPO,,
Budgam on 31.12.2012 requested to Commissioner Secretary Concern for rescinding of order of promotion of petitioner.,,
So bare perusal of these facts of matter ,which has not repelled by petitioner by filing rejoinder, it is evident that petitioner has",,
manipulated the things by forging the signature of then Director and also made wrong entries in her service books , for getting",,
promotion to which she was otherwise not legally eligible as per seniority list. The petitioner beside manipulating the things for getting,,
undue benefit of promotion , has also committed Criminal act , so she is not entitled to any protection as provided under article 311",,
(2) of Constitution of Indian. In view of above this petition is dismissed; interim stay if any is vacated. Respondents may proceed,,
against petitioner under relevant provision of laws.,,