Illegal Appointments: Anti-Corruption Court frames charges against 2 ex J&K Bank Chairmen, others

STATE TIMES NEWS

SRINAGAR: The Court has framed charges against two former Chairmen of J&K Bank Ltd and others in connection with alleged illegal appointments of Bank Attendants and Assistant Bank Associates.
The Court of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar, Tasleem Arief after hearing the prosecution through Special Public Prosecutor, Wajahat Jamil and the accused through their counsel, held that sufficient prima facie material exists to proceed against the accused for offences punishable under relevant sections of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Ranbir Penal Code.
The court framed the charges in connection with the FIR No. 10/2019 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) following a complaint alleging backdoor appointments in different branches of the J&K bank.
According to the prosecution, the accused, including former Chairmen Mushtaq Ahmed Sheikh and Parvez Ahmed Nengroo along with some senior officials conspired to appoint certain beneficiaries without identifying vacancies, issuing advertisements, or following prescribed norms under the Officers Service Manual, 2000.
The other accused officials named in the charge-sheet are Abdul Rouf Bhat, Muhammad Maqbool Lone, Muhammad Yahya Rafiqui, Syed Irfan Lateef, Arshid Hussain Dar, Shakoor Ahmed Bhat, Vagish Chander Sharma, Muhammad Ayoub Wanchoo, Fayaz Ahmed Bhat, Asif Iqbal Raja, Showkat Ahmed Bhat, Parvaiz Ahmed Baba, Abdul Rashid Shigan, Muhammad Aslam Ganie, Imran Matoo.
Besides these, the charge-sheet mentions the accused beneficiaries- Waseem Mehraj, Anjum Ara, Faizan Ayaz, Mushtaq Ahmed Mir, Hameem Nusrat and Muhammad Iqbal Wani.
The appointments were initially made on a temporary basis for 89 days and later regularised, despite the absence of sanctioned vacancies, according to the ACB. The anti- graft body claimed that among beneficiaries included close relatives of the accused Chairmen.
The probe agency further revealed that the appointees drew salaries amounting to over Rs 41 lakh till August 2019, causing financial loss to the bank and conferring undue pecuniary advantage.
In support of their arguments the accused through their counsel, sought discharge, contending that the FIR was based on a pseudonymous complaint later disowned by the complainant.
The J&K Bank is a private entity and its officers are not public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, they said.
Their further argument was that temporary appointments were made under Rule 310 of the Officers Service Manual in view of administrative exigencies. And the Board of Directors had ratified the appointments through resolutions.
The court, however, held that in keeping with the supreme court judgments, at the stage of framing of charge, it is required only to assess whether there exists sufficient material to presume commission of offences, not to conduct a mini-trial.
The court observed that conspiracy is often proved through circumstantial evidence and that the material on record indicates a “concerted common course of action.”
The court also upheld the validity of the prosecution sanction granted by the Chairman/CEO of J&K Bank under Section 6 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, observing that the Chairman was the competent authority to remove the in-service officials and was, therefore, duly empowered to sanction their prosecution.
“Consistent with the settled legal position and the foregoing discussion, this Court finds from a perusal of the material on record and the preliminary evidence that the prosecution has produced sufficient material furnishing grounds to proceed against the accused,” the court said.
The material on record gives reason to hold that the accused have prima facie committed offences punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code, the court said.
The court concluded that there was sufficient material on record which warrants the framing of charge against the accused and try them for the commission of the offences.
The court listed the matter for further proceeding on March 10.

Comments (0)
Add Comment