Jammu, Sep 24: In O.A./1157/2026 (JAMMU) [ DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE ]titled ABHIKANT SHARMA Vs JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT after hearing VAT ordered as under:-
1. Learned A.A.G. has filed short reply to the O.A. along with copy of Inquiry Report dated 06.07.2026, copy whereof has already been shared with the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order No. 129-JK (JSD) of 2026 dated 20.07.2026, is not sustainable under law for more than one reason.
Firstly, it is impermissible to initiate a fresh inquiry against the applicant on same charges by the respondent No. 4, who in the earlier enquiry report dated 08.07.2026, arrived at a finding that no conclusion regarding the guilt or innocence of the applicant can be recorded in the said departmental enquiry in view of the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant in a court of Law, in connection with FIR No. 43 of 2026 under sections 8/21/22 of the NDPS Act.
Secondly, no effort has been made by the Respondent No. 4 to enable the applicant to participate in the inquiry process, which on the bare perusal of the inquiry report dated 06.07.2026, shows that inquiry has been conducted in absence of the petitioner and thirdly, the Respondent No. 1 (Disciplinary Authority) on receipt of the enquiry Report, has neither issued notice to the applicant nor copy of the enquiry officer’s report has been supplied to him, in terms of Rules 34 and 35 of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.
3. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the impugned order, whereby the applicant during his suspension period has been dismissed from service and also disqualified from any future employment with the government, be stayed and respondents be directed to give suspension allowance to the applicant.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a recent judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 21.04.2026 in the case of Chandni Prateek Sharma Vs. High Court of Gujarat and also on the Bahadur Singh Vs State reported in 2005 (1) SLJ 51 2004 (3) JKJ 275 HC and Nazir Ahmed Dar Vs. State and others 2015 (4) JKJ 356 [HC].
4. The learned A.A.G. appearing for the respondents while defending the impugned contended that applicant is involved in FIR No. 43/2026 u/s 8/21/22 of NDPS Act and, therefore, his conduct is unbecoming of a government servant.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on the perusal of authorities cited above, it is apparent that as per law laid down in Chandni Prateek Sharma (supra) judgement, there cannot be a de novo enquiry by an inquiry officer on the same set of charges. Moreover, the mandate as contained in Rule 33 of CCA Rules, which deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a permanent employee has not been followed. Similar is the position granted under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Ex facie, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of Article 311 of Constitution and also in violation to the statutory protections granted under CCA Rules, more particularly Rule 33.
The impugned order also suffers from non application of mind, as de novo enquiry on same set of charges, which were subject matter of an earlier enquiry is not permissible under law.
6. The applicant has succeeded in making out a prima facie case in his favour.
7. Accordingly, as an interim measure, subject to objections from other side and till the next date of hearing, the impugned order is stayed with the further direction to release the subsistence allowance in favour of the applicant, as per rules.
8. The learned A.A.G. is at liberty to file detailed reply to the O.A. on or before the next date.
9. List on 17.11.2026.
Pragya Sahay Saksena Member (A) Sanjeev Gupta Member (J)
|