A single Bench of Justice Javid Iqbal Wani while quashing the Order of Suspension and the Statement of Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputation in support of the Articles of Charge issued against the Petitioner held that Once An FIR is Quashed by the Court, Then The Disciplinary Proceedings on Similar Set of Allegations/Charges Cannot be Allowed to Continue. The same would amount to sitting over the judgement of the court which by no stretch of imagination would be in any case permissible.
The petitioner in the instant case was seeking quashment of his order of Suspension on the ground that the same has not been reviewed by the authorities from time to time as also the said order of suspension was not issued by a competent authority. The petitioner had also thrown challenge to the statement of Articles of Charge on the ground that the FIR on the same set of allegations has already been quashed by the hon’ble High Court and the articles of charge framed against the petitioner have no legs to stand upon. The petitioner had sought a direction upon the respondents to revoke his order of suspension and further a prohibition on the respondents from going ahead with the enquiry proceedings which were initiated three years before, but without in conclusion as on date.
There was an allegation of illegality in the initial appointment of the petitioner as also his accelerated promotion to the post of Managing Director in the corporation within just 16 years of service in a dubious manner for which an FIR under the provisions of J&K Prevention of Corruption act was registered in the year 2019 . The said FIR was challenged by the petitioner by way of a quashment petition under section 482 CrPC, which came to be allowed by the High Court quashing the said FIR. After the registration of FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension and came to be served with the statement of Articles of Charge and Statement of Imputation in support of said Articles of charge. The petitioners challenged both order of suspension as also the statement of articles of charge and Statement of imputation in support of articles of charge?
The Respondents on the other side had contended that the Order of Suspension was issued in terms of Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1956. Also that the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings is altogether different and there is no bar in law to run both the proceedings simultaneously.
The court formulated following two questions for consideration and determination on the basis of facts and circumstances:
a) Whether the government can suspend and punish an employee of the corporation in terms of provisions of the Rules of 1956, even if, the said corporation is owned and controlled by the Government?
b) Whether with the quashment of an FIR, departmental proceedings initiated on similar and same allegations as are contained in FIR, the departmental proceedings initiated on such similar charges can be quashed by this court in exercise of a writ jurisdiction?
while answering the first question the court held that since the corporation has its own Articles of Association inasmuch Service Rules being Rules of 1977 which Rules govern and regulate the service conditions of the employees of the corporation. Thus, As long as the petitioner continued to be on the establishment of the corporation his service would be governed by the Articles of Association and the Rules of 1977. Therefore, the respondents lack competence and jurisdiction to issue the impugned order of suspension against the petitioner or for that matter to draw, frame and serve Statement of Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputation in support of the Articles of Charges.
while answering the second question the court while relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in “Ram Lal versus State of Rajasthan (civil appeal no. 7935 of 2023) dated 04.12.2023 held that Once An FIR is Quashed by the Court, Then The Disciplinary Proceedings on Similar Set of Allegations/Charges Cannot be Allowed to Continue. The same would amount to sitting over the judgement of the court which by no stretch of imagination would be in any case permissible.
Accordingly the Court Allowed the Petition.
