Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Syed Farooq Ahmed vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 1 October, 2020
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Serial No. 109
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1322/2020 (O&M)
(Through Video Conferencing)
Syed Farooq Ahmed ...Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. M.A. Bhat, Advocate
v/s
Union Territory of J&K and others ....Respondent(s)
Through:-
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The petitioner had approached this Court praying for quashing of the communication dated 08.05.2020, whereby the respondent No. 2 i.e. Inspector General of Police, State Crime Branch has requested the appointing authority of the petitioner to initiate departmental inquiry proceedings against him, on account of fraudulent withdrawal of medical re-imbursement.
2. A perusal of the aforesaid communication shows that the petitioner had fraudulently got the medical re-imbursement approval in his favour in the name of his father, to which he was not entitled to. After the mater came to the notice of the authorities, the petitioner had deposited that amount in the treasury.
3. To challenge the aforesaid communication, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same amounts to double jeopardy as the matter has already been gone into by the inquiry committee report of which has already 2 WP(C) No. 1322/2020 been submitted. The petitioner was not found to be at default. Hence, there is no question of initiation of fresh inquiry against the petitioner.
4. He further submitted that it was not a case of fraudulent withdrawal rather there was lack of approval by the competent authority and the matter is still pending for approval, however, the amount was released to him.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition. The report, which the petitioner wants to rely upon to plead that it is a case of double jeopardy, is not by any authority appointed to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The document sought to be relied upon in some inquiry committee report. It does not suggest anywhere as to who were the members of the committee.
6. The committee report itself shows that there was complaint received against the petitioner of illegal withdrawal of medical re-imbursement. He wanted the same to be regularized on humanitarian grounds from the administrative department and also expressed his willingness to deposit the entire amount withdrawn i.e. to the tune of Rs. 3,32,686/-.
7. In case, the petitioner was entitled to medical re-imbursement as claimed by him, there was no question of re-deposit of the amount in the treasury and also use of words by 'humanitarian grounds' by the committee in its report. There is no date, as such, coming on record of the report of the enquiry committee, however, the index of the writ petition shows the same to be dated 22.08.2019. There was nothing pointed out by the petitioner to show that in the last more than one year, whether any sanction has been granted in his favour by the administrative department or not. In the absence thereof, amount of medical re-imbursement withdrawn by him remains unauthorized. 3 WP(C) No. 1322/2020
8. In fact, from a perusal of the documents on record, it is evident that earlier also State Crime Branch had referred the matter for inquiry against the petitioner for fraudulent withdrawal of the medical re-imbursement vide communication dated 31.12.2018, and it was on the basis thereof, that the committee had conducted the inquiry. Effort seems to be close the matter without following due process. During the course of alleged inquiry the petitioner had deposited the amount with the treasury on 10.01.2019 but thereafter, though, it is claimed that it had to be regularized by the administrative department, there is nothing on record to suggest the same. All what the Crime Branch has suggested to Directorate of ISM is to initiate regular departmental action against the petitioner for misconduct. There is no error in the communication as regular department action has been taken as the per the rules applicable, whereas the earlier inquiry was general in nature by constituting a committee to find out different aspects as has been referred to in the report.
9. It is expected that the matter in dispute will be enquired into by the competent authority as expeditiously as possible to put on rest the controversy and give a message to other employees in case, they are also indulging in such types of activities.
10. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE JAMMU 01.10.2020 SUNIL-I Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No MANZOOR UL HASSAN DAR 2020.10.07 13:48