HC issues notice to Secy GAD, Director Vigilance
JAMMU: Justice Janak Raj Kotwal on Tuesday issued three weeks’ notice to Commissioner/Secretary GAD and Director Vigilance in a petition filed to seek quashing of the decision of the Director Vigilance on illegally/arbitrarily closing the complaint of the petitioner dated 4th March, 2014 to seek registration of FIR against Mohammad Akbar Lone, former Speaker and presently Minister for Higher Education and Mohammad Ramzan, Secretary, J and K Legislative Assembly, under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act for making illegal/backdoor appointments against the newly sanctioned posts in the Assembly Secretariat and MLA Hostels, Jammu/Srinagar.
The complaint of the petitioner fully satisfied the ingredients of Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 as the accused abused their official position as public servants and conferred pecuniary advantage in the shape of jobs on pick and choose basis to their blue eyed persons without adopting any criteria. The respondents virtually conferred favour upon few by excluding number of unemployed deserving candidates and the act of the said respondents is squarely covered within the ambit of Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 2006. The respondent being a premier investigating agency of the State was under an obligation to investigate the complaint of the petitioner fairly and uninfluenced by the position occupied by the other respondents but the SVO accepted the so called report of the Assembly Secretariat as gospel truth and resorted to escapism losing sight of the fact that offence stood proved against the other respondents as there was no plausible defence of the Assembly Secretariat as the defence of previous practice/ convention was taken which is not acceptable under law as it is settled law that one wrong will not justify another wrong and the respondent took a decision contrary to law/factual position to close the complaint of the petitioner and the said decision was conveyed to this Court in terms of a status report filed in the above referred contempt petition. Since the decision of the SVO is bad in the eyes of law as such the said decision has given a new cause of action to the petitioner to assail the said decision and to seek fresh directions to the SVO to investigate the matter by registering an FIR against the respondents and the said investigation be carried out by a duly constituted SIT to be headed by an Officer not less than the rank of SSP and the said Officer should be directed to file periodic status reports before this Court till the investigation reaches to its logical conclusion. Since the impugned action is actuated with malafides as such the same is liable to be quashed.JNF