Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 219 (JK)

Maroofa Nazki v. Govt. of J&K

2023-05-31

SANJAY DHAR

body2023
JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged FIR No. 28/2022 for offences under Section 420, 468, 471 RPC registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir. 2. As per the impugned FIR, a complaint was received by Crime Branch, Kashmir, from one Mohammad Aslam Ganie, wherein it was alleged that three employees of J&K Handicrafts Department including the petitioner herein have been appointed in the Department on the basis of fake matriculation certificates. A Preliminary Verification of the allegations made in the complaint was undertaken by the Crime Branch, Kashmir, and during the probe, it was substantiated that accused including the petitioner herein have procured their appointment on the basis of fake and forged matriculation certificates. As per the impugned FIR offences under Section 420, 468, 471 RPC stand, prima facie, established against the accused including the petitioner herein. 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR by stating that her date of birth in the service record was recorded at the time of her initial appointment as 03.06.1964 on the basis of 9th class certificate issued by the school wherein she had studied. According to the petitioner, she had submitted discharge certificate issued by Hindu Education Institution, Srinagar, and on the basis of this certificate, her date of birth was incorporated in the service record. It has been submitted that in the year 2006, when the petitioner gained knowledge that her credentials have been wrongly mentioned in her service book, inasmuch as it had been mentioned therein that she is a matriculate, she filed an application before the competent authority on 08.11.2006, stating therein that her academic qualification has been wrongly mentioned as matric instead of under-matric. Accordingly, the petitioner is stated to have sought rectification of her credentials in her service records. When the Department did not take any action on her application, the petitioner is stated to have made another application on 05.04.2007. On 28.08.2007, the petitioner was advised to deposit the matriculation certificate and in response to the said communication she, vide her letter dated 30.08.2007, informed the Department that she has never submitted any matriculation certificate as she is not a matriculate. She further requested the department that correction may be effected in her service record in this regard. 4. On 28.08.2007, the petitioner was advised to deposit the matriculation certificate and in response to the said communication she, vide her letter dated 30.08.2007, informed the Department that she has never submitted any matriculation certificate as she is not a matriculate. She further requested the department that correction may be effected in her service record in this regard. 4. A series of representations are stated to have been made by the petitioner to her department for correction of her service record but without any success, which compelled her to file a writ petition before this Court. The same was disposed of by this Court on 26.07.2017 and a direction was issued to the Department to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted that Crime Branch, Kashmir, forwarded a complaint to the petitioner's department, whereafter a committee was constituted comprising Joint Director, Handicrafts and Assistant Director, Handicrafts, for enquiring into the matter. After holding enquiry into the complaint, it was found that the petitioner had never submitted matriculation certificate and her date of birth was recorded on the basis of 9th class certificate. It has been submitted that the documents relating to aforesaid events were furnished by the department to the respondents during Preliminary Verification but despite this, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. 6. The respondents filed their reply to the petition, in which contents of the impugned FIR have been reiterated and it has been submitted that during the course of Preliminary Verification, the allegations made in the complaint were substantiated and, as such, the impugned FIR came to be registered. It has been submitted that because of the stay order granted by this Court, the investigation could not progress further. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. I have also gone through the record relating to the Preliminary Verification on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be lodged. 8. The crux of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that she has never submitted matriculation certificate to her department, either at the time of her appointment or at any other stage. I have also gone through the record relating to the Preliminary Verification on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be lodged. 8. The crux of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that she has never submitted matriculation certificate to her department, either at the time of her appointment or at any other stage. It is the case of the petitioner that she is an under-matric and her date of birth in her service record has been recorded on the basis of 9th class certificate issued by Hindu Educational Institute, Srinagar, and not on the basis of the matriculation certificate. On this ground, it is urged that the allegation in the impugned FIR that the petitioner has produced a fake document for procuring her appointment, does not have any basis. 9. In order to test the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner, this Court felt the necessity of going through the record of the Preliminary Verification, on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be lodged. The respondents have produced the requisite record. 10. A perusal of the record of the Preliminary Verification reveals that the verification has been initiated on the basis of the complaint made by one Mohammad Aslam Ganie, who has alleged that the accused including the petitioner herein have been appointed in the Department of Handicrafts on the basis of fake matriculation certificates. The complainant has produced photocopies of 10th pass certificates of Fayaz Ahmad Shah S/o Ghulam Ahmad Shah and Ms. Akeeda Parveen D/o Ali Mohammad and copy of first page of service book of the petitioner herein. He has not produced photocopy of matriculation certificate of the petitioner. A perusal of the photocopy of the first page of service book of the petitioner shows that it bears endorsement to the effect that her date of birth has been recorded on the basis of matriculation certificate issued by the Board of School Education under Roll No. 27717 for the Session October-November, 1983. 11. From a perusal of the record pertaining to Preliminary Verification, it is revealed that on 07.07.2021, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Kashmir, had written a letter to the Handicrafts Department seeking documents and information with regard to cases of the accused including the petitioner herein. 11. From a perusal of the record pertaining to Preliminary Verification, it is revealed that on 07.07.2021, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Kashmir, had written a letter to the Handicrafts Department seeking documents and information with regard to cases of the accused including the petitioner herein. Vide letter dated 16.07.2021, issued by Directorate of Handicrafts & Handloom to the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Kashmir, the relevant information was given to the Crime Branch. The relevant excerpts of the said information are reproduced as under: “With regard to Ms. Maroofa Nazki, earlier a complaint of similar contents was received by this office through State Crime Branch vide No. CHQ/Clt/k-24/17-1079, dated 20.01.2017, against Mrs. Maroofa Nazki. On enquiry, the said official denied of having qualification of matriculation and submitted that she has requested several times for rectification of qualification in her service book. The official approached Hon'ble High Court for rectification of qualification and the Hon'ble Court disposed of the said petition with the direction to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner (Mrs. Maroofa Nazki). Accordingly, the qualification on the service book was rectified and recorded as 9th pass as per the discharge certificate issued by Hindu Educational Institute, Gonikhan Srinagar, wherein the D.O.B. of the official is mentioned as 03.06.1964. The said 9th pass certificate has also been got verified from concerned school. (Copies enclosed). The 1st page of service book of the official is enclosed.” 12. From a perusal of the afore-quoted communication, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer was informed by the Department that the petitioner has throughout denied having the qualification of matriculation and she had made several requests for rectification of qualification in her service book. It was also conveyed to the Enquiry Officer that the claim of the petitioner was considered pursuant to the directions of the High Court and qualification in her service record was rectified and recorded as 9th pass. The Enquiry Officer has, during the Preliminary Verification, collected the copy of the rectified page of service book of the petitioner as also the copy of the certificate issued by Hindu Educational Institute, Srinagar, on the basis of which date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in her service record. 13. The file pertaining to Preliminary Verification also contains a copy of Order No. 1102-HD of 2017, dated 30.12.2017, issued by Director, Handicrafts, J&K Government. 13. The file pertaining to Preliminary Verification also contains a copy of Order No. 1102-HD of 2017, dated 30.12.2017, issued by Director, Handicrafts, J&K Government. In the aforesaid order, it has been clearly indicated that after holding an enquiry into the matter, it was found that there is no matriculation certificate of the petitioner available in the record of the department except a photostat copy of the discharge certificate of 9th Class issued by Headmaster, Hindu Educational Institute, Gonikhan, Srinagar, which reveals the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.06.1964. The relevant observations made in the said order are reproduced as under: “Whereas, Joint Director handicrafts Kashmir vide Communication No. HD/JDHK/Estt/1345, dated 08-08-2017 submitted a detailed report by virtue of which it was informed that the service book of Maroofa Nazki ACTO date of birth as 03-06-1964 as per Matriculation Certificate issued by the School Board of Education. However, there is no such certificate available in the records of Mass Carpet Scheme, except a Photostat copy of discharge certificate of class 9" issued by Head Master Hindu Educational Institute Gonikhan Srinagar on 09-07-1985 which reveals the date of birth of Maroofa Nazki as the same viz. 03-06-1964. The Joint Director Handicrafts further reported that Maroofa Nazki was served a notice vide HD/JDHK/Estt/745, dated 13-06-2017 asking her to produce her Matriculate certificate, but in response to which she stated that she has never produced Matriculation Certificate, instead, she was persistently requesting for rectification of her Date of Birth in the service records.” 14. From the analysis of the foregoing record, which is available in the file relating to Preliminary Verification, it is clear that the petitioner has never passed matriculation examination nor has she ever claimed having acquired such qualification. It also emerges that she has right from the year 2006, when there was no complaint against her before the Crime Branch or before her parent department, approached her parent department for rectification of her qualification in her service record but her request was not considered by the department. It was only after the direction passed by this Court that her parent department held an enquiry, whereafter the particulars relating to her qualification were rectified in her service record. 15. It was only after the direction passed by this Court that her parent department held an enquiry, whereafter the particulars relating to her qualification were rectified in her service record. 15. From the aforesaid sequence of events, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has at no stage either produced a fake document before the department or has tried to claim that she has passed the matriculation examination. It is pertinent to mention here that for the post to which the petitioner was initially appointed, passing of matriculation examination was not the requisite qualification. 16. All these facts were available before the Enquiry Officer who was conducting the Preliminary Verification but in spite of this, recommendation was made by the said officer for registration of FIR even against the petitioner though the material collected by the Enquiry Officer clearly showed that no offence was committed by her. Therefore, registration of impugned FIR to the extent of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the contentions of the petitioner can be looked into by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation of the case and that investigation into the impugned FIR should be allowed to proceed further. 18. I am afraid the contention of learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted for the reason that there is already material available with the Investigating Agency, which clearly exonerates the petitioner from the allegations made in the complaint. Thus, no purpose will be served by allowing the respondents to subject the petitioner to investigation relating to the allegations which have not been substantiated during the Preliminary Verification. 19. For the foregoing reasons allowing the investigation to proceed against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR to the extent of the petitioner is quashed. 20. Record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.