PARMANAND Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1999-1-5
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on January 29,1999

PARMANAND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

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." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.