S N SARAF Vs. ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition against the Anti -Corruption Commission (Non -gazetted) for quashing the charge -sheet framed against the petitioner on 22 -3 -66 and directing the Anti -Corruption Commission not to proceed against the petitioner to inquire into the alleged charges.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner who was employed as a Cashier in the office of the Dy. Transport Commr. Garages Central Workshop Pampore was accused of some irregularities in the discharge of his official duties in the year 1961 and later on in the year 1964. He was finally charge sheeted departmentally on 19 -5 -64 by the Dy. Transport Commr. Garages and was directed to submit his written reply to the charges. The charges are given in detail in annexure E to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Ultimately the Chief Engineer Mechanical and Stores Department submitted a recommendation to the Government wherein for the irregularities committed by the petitioner certain punishments were awarded to him. The Chief Engineers recommendations No. 106 of 1965 which is based on the report of the Executive Engineer Mr. Drabu dated 31 -3 -65 were 1) that the period of suspension of the petitioner be treated as leave without any pay. 2) His increments be forfeited for three years. 3) He should immediately on reinstatment be transferred from the Mechanical and Stores Department 4) In no way should behold any post which involved cash transaction directly or indirectly for a period of at least five years. 5) A note be kept in his service book indicating the charges therein. Simultaneously with proposing these punishments, it was suggested that the petitioner be reinstated. These recommendations were accepted by the Government vide Government Order No. MS -50/65 dated 14 -9 -65 which is annexure G to the petition.

(3.) THE petitioners case is that for these mis -deeds he has already been punished by the Government and therefore he cannot again be charge -sheeted for the same misdeeds by the respondent, the Anti -Corruption Commission. This is the crux of the matter. The factual aspect of the contents of the petition are not denied on behalf of the State. They are also not denied by the Anti -Corruption Commission while framing the charges against the petitioner. The Stare contends through the affidavit of the General Secretary, Mr. Sheikh, that there was no regular inquiry against the petitioner ; that the doctrine of autre fois acquit does not apply to the petitioner. The petitioner had committed corruption within meaning of S. 3 -C of the J & K Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner about the non -maintainability of the present proceedings before the commission was rejected by it. There has been no violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioner as alleged by him, and the commission is competent to inquire into the charges of corruption against the petitioner and therefore the writ is misconceived.