Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(18 of 62) [CW-11039/2010]

(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.

29. The report also does not indicate that there is any irregularity in the bank accounts maintained by the Appellant. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir clearly shows that according to the Vigilance Organization, three First Information Reports bearing Nos. 49/91, 11/95 and 63/94 were registered by the State Vigilance Organization against the Appellant when he was posted as Executive Engineer (REW, Kathua). Upon investigation, all the FIRs were found to be "Not Proved". However, recommendation was made to initiate departmental action against the officer. Inspite of the aforesaid recommendation, it has not been disputed before us, that no departmental action was ever initiated against the Appellant. In fact, after the completion of the investigation into the FIRs, the Appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 15.12.1996. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there were no material before the High Powered Committee to conclude that the officer possessed assets beyond his known source of income.