Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 635 (JK)

Manzoor Hussain v. State of J&K

2021-12-03

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J.-The petitioners in these petitions have impugned the same FIR bearing No. 78/2005 dated 11.11.2005 registered with Police Station, Mandi, District Poonch for commission of offences under sections 467, 468, 420, 471 and 120-B RPC as such, both the petitions are taken up together. 2. The petitioner-Manzoor Hussain in CRMC No. 208/2016 was working in the Education Department and superannuated in the year, 2004. In the year, 2000 when the petitioner was posted as Incharge ZEO, Mandi, the Government launched a scheme commonly known as Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme. The aim and object of the said scheme was to provide education by engaging community member called as ReT. The ReT was to be selected and engaged by a duly constituted Village Education Committee (VEC) comprising of prominent citizens of the locality headed by the ZEO. The ReT was to be engaged only after the VEC scrutinized the credentials of the applicant & made recommendations to the Deputy Commissioner. After approval accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, the formal engagement order was to be issued by the ZEO. As far as the Village, Sawjian is concerned, that falls in Zone Mandi, a panel of eligible candidates was prepared by the VEC where after the names of the meritorious candidates fully eligible in all respects were recommended before the Deputy Commissioner Poonch, who was Chairman of the selection committee at the relevant point of time and after the approval by the Deputy Commissioner Poonch, the petitioner who was ZEO Mandi in the year, 2000 issued formal order in favour of the candidates so approved by the Deputy Commissioner Poonch. 3. That in the year, 2005, one Riaz Ahmed initiated criminal proceedings against the engagement of one Farooq Ahmed who was engaged as ReT in the year, 2000 that resulted in registration of FIR bearing No. 78/2005 in Police Station, Mandhi (for short the FIR impugned) for commission of offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC against the persons excluding the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that for the last more than 10 years, the petitioner was never served with any notice or summon by the Investigating Agency in the aforesaid FIR and neither he was aware of the status of any such investigation. 4. It is further submitted that for the last more than 10 years, the petitioner was never served with any notice or summon by the Investigating Agency in the aforesaid FIR and neither he was aware of the status of any such investigation. It was only a few days back when the police officials of Police Station, Mandi started visiting the residence of petitioner and extended threats of involving the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR and the petitioner came to know that the aforesaid FIR was initially closed by the Police as not proved and final report was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch. That once the final report was submitted before the competent court then the petitioner was not aware on whose directions, fresh process was started in the same FIR. It is further submitted that the Reyaz Ahmed who was the candidate in the wait list, even filed a writ petition against the selection of Farooq Ahmed, that was dismissed by this Court and LPA was also dismissed. The FIR has been impugned on the following grounds: (a) That the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. (b) That the cause of action alleged to have been accrued in the year, 2000 and the FIR impugned came to be registered after lapse of more than five years (c) That the petitioner cannot be put to harassment in the garb of so called investigation that is pending investigation for more than 10 years and the delay in investigation is sufficient for quashing the FIR. (d) that the petitioner at the relevant point of time acted like a prudent man and the documents produced by the concerned candidates prima facie appeared to be genuine subject to the verification made by the independent agency. 5. Response stands filed by the respondents in which it is stated that on 10.01.2005 complainant, namely, Rayaz Ahmed S/o Abdul Hamid Caste Banday R/o Sawajian Tehsil Mandi produced a written complaint duly endorsed by Senior Superintendent of Police Poonch to PP Sawajian to the effect that the complainant applied for the post of ReT in the year, 2000 in the office of ZEO Mandi. The complainant figured at serial No. 4 whereas Farooq Ahmed and Tazeem Akhter figured at serial No. 2 and 3 respectively. Both of them were appointed as ReTs by the competent authority and the complainant was not selected. The complainant figured at serial No. 4 whereas Farooq Ahmed and Tazeem Akhter figured at serial No. 2 and 3 respectively. Both of them were appointed as ReTs by the competent authority and the complainant was not selected. It is further stated that the complainant came to know about the fake and tampered mark sheet produced by Farooq Ahmed about 10 days back when Farooq Ahmed was removed from service by the Director Education Department. This illegal act has been committed with the connivance of Sarpanch Nisar Ahmed Shah and officials of Zonal Education Office Mandi. 6. Pursuant to this, FIR impugned was registered. Investigation was conducted and as per report of Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education, the marks sheet of 12th in respect of Farooq Ahmed was not in accordance with the record of the Board and Farooq Ahmed produced another marks sheet of Patna University that was also verified and found correct by the concerned University and I.O closed the investigation of the case as final report No. 11/2012. The complainant was called by the learned CJM Poonch who appeared in person and lodged his protest that the investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer in a casual manner without reaching to logical conclusion by leaving the investigation mid way and closed the case. Accordingly, the learned CJM Poonch vide his order dated 27.05.2015 directed the SSP Poonch to conduct the further thorough investigation of the case and also impressed upon to initiate departmental inquiry against the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation in the instant case in a casual manner. As per directions of CJM Poonch, further investigation was conducted and as per the investigation, it was found that the ZEO concerned and Senior Assistant prepared two panels and submitted to the Deputy Commissioner. In the first panel, Farooq Ahmed was figuring at serial No. 11 and complainant was figuring at serial No. 06 and in the second panel Farooq Ahmed’s name figured at serial No. 01 and Tazeem Akhter at serial No. 02. In the second panel complainant’s name did not exist although one person namely Reyaz Ahmed existed at serial No. 03. The first panel was approved by two officers and second panel was approved by 03 officers with the direction to ZEO Mandi that the original documents of all the candidates must be checked before issuing necessary orders. In the second panel complainant’s name did not exist although one person namely Reyaz Ahmed existed at serial No. 03. The first panel was approved by two officers and second panel was approved by 03 officers with the direction to ZEO Mandi that the original documents of all the candidates must be checked before issuing necessary orders. The District Development Commissioner issued formal order dated 14.06.2000 for engagement of Farooq Ahmed and Tazeen Akhter as ReTs with the direction to the ZEO Mandi for proper verification of their original documents before issuing final order in favour of the candidates. While ignoring the direction of their seniors, the then ZEO Mandhi petitioner herein and his Senior Assistant in the office, petitioner in CRMC No. 204/2016 issued order in favour of candidates without proper checking and verification of original documents and posted Farooq Ahmed at M.S Sundry and Tazeem Akhter at Middle School Gagrian. In the year, 2005, both the candidates completed their five years as Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher and became eligible for appointment as General Line Teacher in the Education Department. The then Chief Education Officer, Poonch constituted a Screening Committee for verification of documents/certificate of all ReTs of District for their regularization as General Line Teacher. During verification, the Screening Committee Member scrutinized the documents submitted by Farooq Ahmed and Tazeem Akhter for verification and found mismatch in the Date of Birth of Tazeem Akhter and directed her to provide original diploma of 10th Class and during verification of original mark sheet of 12th Class in respect of Farooq Ahmed, the Committee detected the tampering in the name, parentage, sessions and detail of subjects on marks sheet. On this, then ZEO Mandi directed the Headmaster Middle School Sundry not to allow Farooq Ahmed to sign on arrival register of the School. During the course of investigation, the 10th Class mark sheet of Tazeem Akhter and 12th Class mark sheet of the Farooq Ahmed were got verified from JKBOSE Jammu and as per report submitted by JK BOSE, the mark sheet of Tazeem Akhter was in accordance with the record of Board whereas mark sheet of Higher Secondary School of Farooq Ahmed was not in accordance with the record of Board. The same was got examined by the expert by the Scientific Expert, FSL Jammu and as per expert report marks of physical erasures have been detected in name, parentage, sessions and details of subjects. 7. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the Investigating Officer has proved the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC against the petitioners herein, whereas no offence has been proved against Tazeem Akhter. 8. Learned counsels for the petitioners in both the petitions have vehemently submitted that the names of the petitioners do not figure in the impugned FIR and once the investigation in the FIR was closed as not proved, then the subsequent investigation could not have been conducted by the respondents and further that there has been an inordinate delay in the investigation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently submitted that as per the response, the investigation was conducted pursuant to the directions of CJM, Poonch vide his order dated 27.05.2015 and the Investigating Officer has proved the offence against both the petitioners. 10. Heard and perused the record. 11. From the record, it is evident that the allegations against the petitioner-Manzoor Hussain, the then ZEO and Subash Chander Sharma, the then Senior Assistant in the office of ZEO Mandi are that they did not check and verify the documents furnished by Farooq Ahmed for the purpose of securing engagement as ReT. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that this illegal act has been committed in connivance with the officials ZEO Mandi. It requires to be noted that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia. Once during the course of investigation, it was found that both the petitioners Manzoor Hussain, and Subash Chander Sharma, was the ZEO and Senior Assistant respectively at the relevant point of time when the appointment was issued in favour of Farooq Ahmed, no fault can be found so far as FIR impugned is concerned, as such, this contention of the petitioner is rejected. The second contention is that the investigation was closed and without there being any order, there cannot be further investigation. The second contention is that the investigation was closed and without there being any order, there cannot be further investigation. In the response, the respondents have categorically stated that the matter was further investigated pursuant to the directions of CJM Poonch vide his order dated 27.05.2015 so this ground too pales into insignificance particularly when the said order has not been impugned by the petitioners. The third contention of the petitioner that the documents furnished by the Farooq Ahmed appeared to be genuine, cannot be considered at this stage. The last contention of the petitioner is with regard to the delay in the investigation. It needs to be noted that the FIR was lodged in the year 2005 and the same was closed as not admitted on 10.07.2012 and thereafter CJM Poonch vide order dated 27.05.2015 directed SSP, Poonch to conduct the further investigation and initiate departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer. So merely on the ground of delay, the FIR impugned and investigation conducted pursuant thereto cannot be quashed. 12. There are serious allegations against the petitioner Manzoor Hussain and his Senior Assistant Subash Chander Sharma that they did not verify the education testimonials of Farooq Ahmed at the time of issuing appointment order in utter disregard of the directions issued by the Senior Officers for proper checking and verification of documents before issuing any formal order. 13. Thus, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to show any indulgence to quash the FIR, as such, the present petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed. 14. The petitioner-Subash Chander Sharma in CRMC No. 204/12016 who was the Senior Assistant in the office of ZEO Mandi at the relevant point of time has raised similar contentions those have been considered by this Court as mentioned above, as such, this petition too stands dismissed.