Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 614 (JK)

Prof. S. K. Bhalla v. State

2015-11-20

TASHI RABSTAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. 1. The main plea of petitioner in this writ petition is against the official respondents that they have failed to take appropriate action on the representation filed by him on 23.08.2014 seeking immediate withdrawal of security cover given to respondent No. 12 and disclosure of the names of officers/politicians, who, by misusing their official position, were instrumental in providing security cover to him in breach of the guidelines issued from time to time. The petitioner also highlighted an incident of 27.09.2014 when respondent No. 12, who is stated to be a mere Forest Guard, was seen in distributing the cheques of Rs. 20.00 lac in presence of SDM, Khour amongst the flood affected people of Palatan and Chahani Divanoo, Khour, thus violated the Conduct Rules governing the Government employees, therefore, liable to be proceeded for suitable disciplinary action under Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. Numbers of serious allegations have also been levelled in the petition that by indulging in immoral activities and corrupt practices, respondent No. 12 has amassed huge wealth and properties disproportionate to his known source of income. 2. This Court vide order dated 01.10.2014 had directed the official respondents to file status report with respect to the disposal of the representation dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure-C) claimed to have been filed by the petitioner. 3. In compliance to the said order, status report was filed by respondent No. 1 stating therein that no residential guard/PSO is deployed with respondent No. 12. For facility of reference, relevant extract of the report dated 18.12.2014 submitted by respondent No. 1 is reproduced hereunder:- "7 the position with regard to provision of residential guard and PSO to respondent No. 12 has been got re-verified through the DGP, J&K and the Security Headquarters. It has been informed that no residential guard or any PSO is deployed with Shri Kewal Kumar Sharma (respondent No. 12) as on date. A copy of the letter dated 28.11.2014 of DGP, J&K affirming this position is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P3. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to accumulation of assets by respondent no. 12 has been referred by the answering respondent to the General Administration Department for necessary action...." 4. A copy of the letter dated 28.11.2014 of DGP, J&K affirming this position is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P3. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to accumulation of assets by respondent no. 12 has been referred by the answering respondent to the General Administration Department for necessary action...." 4. The report submitted by respondent No. 1 was, however, controverted by petitioner by alleging that same was not in consonance with the information provided to the petitioner pursuant to his application moved under the Right to Information Act, which inter alia discloses that three men guard and 4 PSOs had been provided to respondent No. 12 on the directions of the senior officers/officials. 5. Noticing the contradictions in the reply given to the petitioner in response to his application under the RTI Act and status report filed by respondent No. 1, this Court vide its order dated 22.12.2014 had directed respondent No. 1 to file an affidavit in this regard coupled with the allegation of accumulation of assets by respondent No. 12. 6. In response to the direction dated 22.12.2014 issued by this Court an affidavit came to be filed by one Sudershan Kumar, Additional Secretary to Government, Home Department in regard to deployment of guards and PSOs with respondent No. 12, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder :- " However, District Police, Jammu has informed that one man was deployed on PSO duty on 03.12.2011 and 4 men were deployed on guard duty on 27.07.2013 with Sh. Kewal Sharma, PRO to the then Deputy CM, J&K. The deployment of these officials was made on the verbal directions of senior officers issued telephonically and that there is no written record to this effect. It has been further informed that the strength was reduced from 4 to 3 in respect of guard duty, however, 4 men were deployed on PSO duty with Sh. Kewal Sharma. At present, no PSO/Guard is being provided to Sh. Kewal Sharma by District Police, Jammu." 7. From the perusal of aforesaid affidavit, it clearly emerges that four men were deployed on PSO duty and four on guard duty with respondent No. 12 on the directions of some senior police officers, whose names were not disclosed in the affidavit. Even respondent No. 12 in the objections has admitted that he and his family members had been provided security and PSOs by the State Government. 8. Even respondent No. 12 in the objections has admitted that he and his family members had been provided security and PSOs by the State Government. 8. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 20.03.2015 directed the Director General of Police to file an affidavit disclosing the names of all such police officers who facilitated deployment of security guards and PSOs with Forest Guard Kewal Sharma. 9. In compliance to the aforesaid direction, short affidavit was filed by one Mukesh Singh, Inspector General of Police (Personnel), PHQ, J&K, Jammu on behalf of the Director General of Police, relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereunder:- "That the security has been provided to Shri Kewal Sharma the then PRO to Dy. CM, J&K in the backdrop of the fact that vide DDR No. 24 dated 26.07.2013 of Police Post Pouni Chak, a verbal report has been lodged by Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma wife of Sh. Kewal Sharma resident of Patta Bhouri, Tehsil Jammu stating therein that her husband (Kewal Sharma), who is working as PRO with the Dy. CM, J&K, has telephonically informed that Dy. CM, J&K is annoyed with him on some unknown reason and there is every apprehension that Dy .CM may eliminate her husband through some one. It is further stated in the affidavit that 'keeping in view the threat perception, the then SSP, Jammu has provided the security persons with the then PRO of Dy. CM for security purpose on need basis as and when required from DPL Jammu from time to time." 10. The affidavit filed was not found to be sufficient, as such, this Court vide order dated 09.04.2015 directed Sr. AAG to keep the record available pertaining to the decisions taken by the then SSP, Jammu on the security of respondent No. 12. The Director General of Police was also directed to furnish left over information as required vide order dated 20.03.2015. Similar direction was also issued to respondents 1 and 2 to file the updated status report with regard to the action taken by the Stage Vigilance Organization as regards the disproportionate assets case of respondent No. 12, as the earlier status report dated 27.01.2015 was found to be insufficient one. 11. Similar direction was also issued to respondents 1 and 2 to file the updated status report with regard to the action taken by the Stage Vigilance Organization as regards the disproportionate assets case of respondent No. 12, as the earlier status report dated 27.01.2015 was found to be insufficient one. 11. In the light of order dated 09.04.2015, Inspector General of Police (Personnel) filed the second status report disclosing that the security cover in the shape of PSOs and Guards provided to Forest Guard Kewal Sharma has since been withdrawn. When confronted with this position, petitioner who was present in person made a statement that as the State Government has come to its senses and withdrawn the illegal security cover provided to Forest Guard Kewal Sharma, therefore, he would not press this very issue. He, however, stated that still he would pursue the writ petition with respect to rest of the reliefs, particularly against General Administration Department for initiating disciplinary action against respondent No. 12. 12. While the matter was being considered by this Court as regards initiation of appropriate action against respondent No. 12 on the basis of the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his representation, respondent No. 12 filed an application, bearing MP No. 03/2015 seeking appropriate direction to the official respondents for providing security cover to him and his family, and levelling serious allegations against the then Dy. Chief Minister of the State, namely, Mr. Tara Chand, alleging therein that he was being threatened by him. 13. In response to the aforesaid allegations of respondent No. 12, the then Dy. Chief Minister also approached this Court through the medium of MP No. 04/2015 for becoming as an Intervener in the matter. He also denied all the allegations as blatant lie. 14. With a view to decide the matter finally, which has been kept pending for long, it was heard at length and with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, perused the whole record, particularly status reports and orders passed from time to time. 15. Since the official respondents in the second status report have acknowledged that the illegal security covered provided to Kewal Sharma has already been withdrawn, I do not find any ground to issue any further direction in the matter. 16. 15. Since the official respondents in the second status report have acknowledged that the illegal security covered provided to Kewal Sharma has already been withdrawn, I do not find any ground to issue any further direction in the matter. 16. So far as second prayer of petitioner for initiation of disciplinary action against respondent No. 12 under Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 is concerned, the matter is stated to have been referred by the General Administration Department to the Vigilance Organization for investigation as regards amassing huge wealth/properties by respondent No. 12 by unlawful and corrupt means while acting as a PRO to the then Deputy Chief Minister. Therefore, looking to the gravity of allegations as alleged in the petition, the State Vigilance Organization is directed to investigate the matter and take the investigation to its logical end, under law. 17. So far as the allegations as levelled in MP No. 03 of 2015 are concerned, this aspect of the matter too cannot be gone into and considered by this Court for the simple reason that it is for the Government to look into the matter, who otherwise is stated to be already seized of the matter. 18. In view of all this, now this Court need not go into locus of petitioner to file this writ petition as objected by respondent No. 12 and the intervener as also the issue with regard to impleadment of the then SSP. 19. In this backdrop, this writ petition requires no more indulgence of this Court and the same is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected MPs. 20. Before parting, it needs to bring on record that it is very strange that merely on the verbal request of wife of Forest Guard Kewal Sharma (the then PRO to Deputy Chief Minister), the then Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu deployed four PSOs with Kewal Sharma and also deputed four security guards at his residence without even bothering to ascertain the allegations or investigating the matter in its right perspective. How could a police officer of the rank of Sr. S.P. provide such a huge security to a mere Forest Guard that too only on the verbal request of his wife, when, besides other allegations, serious charges of corruption etc. How could a police officer of the rank of Sr. S.P. provide such a huge security to a mere Forest Guard that too only on the verbal request of his wife, when, besides other allegations, serious charges of corruption etc. have been levelled against Kewal Sharma of amassing huge wealth and properties allegedly by indulging in unlawful means and immoral activities while acting as a PRO to the then Deputy Chief Minister. The same cannot be done without the knowledge of higher-ups. Although the security provided to Kewal Sharma has been withdrawn, but the higher police authorities too seem to be under some sort of pressure or were part of the entire episode. 21. State Government is, therefore, directed to frame some standard criteria for engagement of PROs by the Ministers and other higher-ups. It is very strange that Ministers take any person, generally their relations, without adhering to any criteria as their PROs. Otherwise, how could a Forest Guard officially distribute cheques of Rs. 20.00 lac in presence of SDM, Khour amongst the flood affected people of Palatan and Chahani Divanoo, Khour. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the State Government.