S PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Prahlad Singh has filed this petition for writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Chairman and members of the Anti-Corruption Commission, Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter to be referred to as the Commission) and further prohibiting the second respondent i. e. , the Commission from taking any further action in the charge framed against him. The State is the first respondent in the writ petition.

(2.) THE allegation of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of the State; he held agricultural land in the Pakistan-occupied portion of the State; he was a permanent employee of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and was posted as Asstt. Controller, Weights and Measures, Jammu wherefrom he has been suspended on 10th March 1964 as a consequence of the charges framed against him by the Commission. One S. Lal Singh complained against the petitioner in the year 1961 that he had by unlawful and corrupt means got 31 kanals of land allotted in the name of his minor son, Twinderjit Singh in village Motey in R. S. Pura Tehsil which later on were exchanged for land in Satwari, but the Satwari land was allotted to the petitioner; that his son Twinderjit Singh minor got quarters No, 4 and 5 at Bakshinagar allotted to him.

(3.) THE petitioner, it appears, had something to do as Tehsildar Jammu with the allotment of quarters Nos. 4 and 5 in favour of his son. When these acts of abuse of power and certain mis-representations made by him in procuring the allotments mentioned above were brought to the notice of respondent 1, the respondent No. 1 by means of order dated 19-8-61 framed four charges against the petitioner. A one man Commission consisting of Mr. Ghanshyam was appointed to inquire into these charges. Mr. Ghanshyam made his report on 14-8-63 and according to the petitioner he was exonerated of these charges by the Government on 27-2-63, On 18-4-63 the same Lalchand put in another complaint against the petitioner before the Commission who got it investigated by the special Police Agency and ultimately on 26-264, the Com-mission framed two charges against the petitioner. The petitioner represented to the commission that the subject-matter of the two charges framed against him had been the subject-matter of charges framed against the petitioner by the Government in the year 1961 and as he was exonerated by the Government of the charges framed against him on 27-2-63 he could not be charge-sheeted again for the same acts. The Commission heard the petitioner and after giving a very detailed order quashed the second charge on the ground that the petitioner had been exonerated of that charge by the Government. But the Commission held that the first charge framed by the Commission against the petitioner was not the same as framed against him in the charge-sheet framed by the Government in the year 1961. Therefore the Commission held that it could inquire into the first charge framed against the petitioner. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved with this order of the Commission, has come up to this Court in writ.