PARMANAND Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMARGOEL,J -
(1.) 1. Heard learned counsel.
(2.) PETITIONER has questioned the order Issued by Director School Education, Jammu vide No : DSEJ/GEN/383 -87 dated 2nd May, 1994 (Annexure
PH to the petition), whereby on review of the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Committee in its report dated 5th November, 1993 following was
ordered : "
i) The period of suspension w.e.f. 8 -7 -1976 to 18 -5 -93 is treated as on leave whatever kind is due to him. ii) An amount of Rs. 1738.38 be recovered from him and deposited into Govt. Treasury under proper hand, iii) He should not be entrusted with jon of Store Keeper/cash dealing in future wherever he is posted."
(3.) PETITIONER was working Clerk -cum -Store Keeper in the office of Additional Tehsil Education Officer at Gool. It appears that certain
purchases were made during such period and the cost where of came to Rs.
1738.78. It is further not in dispute that petitioner alongwith one Mr. Radha Krishan, Tehsil Education Officer and Inder Nath, supplier of goods
was challaned and tired under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act read with Sections 120 -B, 467, 468 and 420 RPC, Case
against all three of them was that the goods had not in fact been
purchased and the aforesaid amount had been misappropriated by all three
of them by cheating government as well as by fabricating record which
they knew to be so. Thus petitioner alongwith Radha Krishan acted in a
manner to give undue financial benefit to the third co -conspirator namely
Inder Nath, supplier of goods. Common case of the parties is that after
conviction of all these three persons they approached this court and were
acquitted in terms of the judgment dated 1st October, 1992 passed in
Criminal Appeal No: 59/1980.
While allowing the appeals filed by the convicts, regarding petitioner following observations were made by the learned Judge:
"At the most Parmanand who was storekeeper at that time can be said to be guilty of deriliction of duty for not recording receipt of goods and also explaining about the same which items were riot found in the store at the time of physical verification by the investigating agency. Remedy for that lies by holding departmental inquiry against Parmanand and if he is found guilty punish ing him under rules. So far criminal offences are concerned those are not made out against all the accused -appellants and while allowing these appeals they are acquitted of all the charges."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.