JUDGMENT Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. (Oral) 1. On a complaint filed by one Sajjad Majeed against the present petitioner and two other persons, the respondent-Commission vide order dated 26th of October, 2007 directed for initiation of regular enquiry. 2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the order dated 26th of October, 2007 challenged the same in this writ petition. Further prayer is made in the writ petition that the complaint filed against the petitioner be quashed. 3. This court on 27th of November, 2007 admitted the petition to hearing. The order dated 26th of October, 2007 passed by the Commission was stayed till next date before the Court. 4. Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned senior counsel argued at length. He referred to the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the writ petitioner is a long standing public man and has served the State in various capacities with utmost dedication and has discharged his duties in accordance with law of the land. 5. Learned counsel submitted that initiation of regular enquiry by the respondent-Commission would adversely affect the respect earned by the petitioner in his long public service. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the Jammu and Kashmir Khadi and Village Industries Board is governed by its own rules in the matter of recruitment. He submitted that while making the appointments, the Board has followed its regulations and no illegality has been committed in making the appointments. 7. Learned counsel referred to the complaint to highlight that no allegations have been made against the petitioner in terms of Section 2(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Act, 2002 (for short, Act of 2002). 8. Learned counsel further submitted that before initiation of regular enquiry, the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing, which is against the principles of natural justice. 9. Learned counsel referred to some of the appointment orders to show that no illegality has been committed in making these appointments. 10. The order impugned dated 26th of October, 2007 would show that the respondent-Commission before ordering regular enquiry has considered the objections raised by the petitioner. The respondent-Commission has adverted its attention to the grounds which, inter alia, are that the complainant is not an aggrieved person nor has he laid any factual foundation to bring the complaint within the ambit and scope of the word "allegations" as defined in Section 2(3) of Act of 2002. The respondent-Commission has adverted its attention to the grounds which, inter alia, are that the complainant is not an aggrieved person nor has he laid any factual foundation to bring the complaint within the ambit and scope of the word "allegations" as defined in Section 2(3) of Act of 2002. 11. Learned counsel while referring to the material placed on writ record submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent-Commission could not initiate regular enquiry against the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, who has maintained probity in a public life, by initiation of regular enquiry would be subjected to incalculable sufferings as his reputation as public functionary has come under the cloud. 13. Mr. Rahul Pant appearing for the Respondent-Commission and Mr. S.S. Ahmed appearing for the complainant submitted that the grounds urged in the complaint would show that prirna facie the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of law and complaint does disclose the allegations as defined in Section 2(3) of the Act of 2002 for initiation of regular enquiry against him. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Commission submitted that before initiation of regular enquiry, the objections raised by the petitioner has been considered by the Respondent-Commission and only thereafter, initiation of regular enquiry has been ordered. 15. The investigation of the allegations as contained in the complaint has not reached to its logical conclusion in view of the interjection of the proceedings before the respondent-Commission by the orders of this court. 16. The regular enquiry is at its threshold stage. Initiation of regular enquiry would not in any manner whatsoever indict the petitioner and it cannot be said at this stage that he has committed any misfeasance in office. His reputation as such has not been adversely affected. 17. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the questions of fact, which are raised in the pleadings by the parties, would not call for returning of finding and it is for the respondent-Commission to bring the regular enquiry to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. 18. For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the petition. Same is dismissed along with connected application(s). Interim direction(s) stands vacated. ; Petition dismissed