- (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Section 103 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution and Article 32 (2-a) of Constitution of India filed by Dr. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Director Animal Husbandry, Jammu and Kashmir State praying that the order of the Anti Corruption Commission dated 5th October, 1966 framing the articles of charges against the petitioner be quashed. It is further averred that the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962 being more drastic than the Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1977, the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1958 and the Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, the enquiry against the petitioner is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus liable to be quashed. The petition came up before a Single Judge of this Court and was referred to Division Bench on 7th March, 1967. Thereafter it was referred to the Full Bench in view of certain observations made in the Full Bench Case Mr. M. S. Farooqi v. Chairman Anti-Corruption Commission AIR 1967 J and K 37 FB, regarding Article 14 of the Constitution of India after comparing the provision of the Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962 with those of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.
(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this petition briefly stated are these: The Deputy Inspector General, Anti-Corruption Organization by his letter No. 668 dated 8-5-1964 laid information against respondent No. 2, Shri Ghulam Rasul Anwari, Manager Milk Supply Scheme Cheshmashahi, Srinagar and others alleging corruption against them. On receipt of that letter the Anti Corruption Commission registered a case as No. ACC (C-89) 64 and directed investigation to be made by the Investigating Agency on 9th May, 1964. On 13th May, 1964 the Commission received a copy of an application purporting to be by one Shri Ghulam Mohd. Ganai under endorsement of the P. A. to the Prime Minister containing several allegations of corruption against the officers of the Srinagar Milk Supply Scheme as well as against the Director Animal Husbandry petitioner before us. The commission summoned Shri Ghulam Mohd. Ganai for the purpose of verification of his complaint and for recording his statement. He appeared in response thereto but disowned the said application. The commission then treated the disowned application as 'anonymous information' and registered that information as case No. ACC (C-101) 64 and directed investigation to be made by the same Investigating Agency as had inquired into similar allegations against respondent No. 2 and other for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the allegations. The Deputy Inspector General Anti Corruption Organization, hereinafter to be called the Deputy Inspector General submitted a common report in both the cases to the Commission on 20th July, 1965. The Commission considered that report of the Deputy Inspector General and examined the documents and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against respondent No, 2 and five others and in exercise or its power under Section 12 (4) of the Act framed articles of charges against them on 24th June, 1966, almost a year after the D. I. G. , had submitted his report. It appears that no action was at that stage taken against the petitioner and inquiry against respondent No. 2 and others proceeded. A large number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the petitioner was cited as a prosecution witness. On the 16th of September, 1966 the Commission at the instance of the prosecution summoned the petitioner as a prosecution witness for 17th September, 1966. The petitioner on account of official engagement could not appear and requested that he might be examined on the 19th of September, 1966. On the 17th September, 1966 an application was moved by respondent No. 2 before the Commission that the petitioner should also be charged for acts of corruption because the prosecution evidence disclosed his involvement. The Government counsel in his reply to the application of respondent No, 2 for arraigning the petitioner as an accused stated that the Commission had already called the petitioner as a prosecution witness and his evidence was very material to the case. The objection raised by the counsel for the prosecution was overruled and it was ordered on 5th October, 1966 that the petitioner be arraigned as an accused. The Commission framed articles of charges against the petitioner. In the charges framed against the petitioner it was mentioned that the responsibility of the petitioner in the case was kept open for the present and had to be considered after the enquiry in the case was completed. It was further mentioned in the charges that on 17th September Mr. Ghulam Rasul Anwari made an application that some of the prosecution witnesses had deposed about the complicity of the petitioner in various acts, therefore, he was charged for such acts of corruption as were prima facie made out against him. On 27th October, 1966 objections were raised by the petitioner before the Commission which were also overruled. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he should have been proceeded against under the Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1977 the Jammu and Kashmir (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1958 or the Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. It is submitted that the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962 are more drastic and greatly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner when compared with similar provisions contained in the abovementioned Act and the Rules and the impugned enquiry is thus discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;