The court emphasized that the posting of an officer against whom an enquiry is pending cannot serve the interest of administration.

These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the common ad-in­terim order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned Writ Court in three clubbed writ petitions, bearing OWP No. 174/ 2012 and SWP Nos. 290/2012 and 1692/2011, whereby Government order No. 02-Coop of 2012 dated 03.02.2012, requiring the appellant to look after the charge of the post of General Manager, Anantnag Central Cooperative Bank, has been put in abeyance with direc­tion to respondent No. 1 to handover the charge of the said post to some other officer of integrity.

2. Records reveal that, while the ap­pellant was posted as Senior Manager in the Anantnag Central Cooperative Bank (for short ACCB), respondent No. 2, vide communication No. RCS/SS/ 474-75 dated 23.06.2011, made a report to respondent No. 1 about certain com­plaints received in his office regarding corrupt practices of the officials of the ACCB. Respondent No. 2 in the said com­munication also stated that he had summoned the officials of the Bank to his office twice to seek clarification from them, but they did not respond. Referring to an earlier incident of Debt Relief scam that had occurred in the Bank, respondent No. 2 in the said com­munication made the following recom­mendations:

"Given the above position, in order to avoid any big mischief by the Gen­eral Manager and the other staff who are in league, this office is of the opin­ion that the case shall be handed over to the State Vigilance Organization for a thorough probe. Besides, in view of the recent instructions by the State Gout, on weeding out of corrupt offi­cials under Article 226 of the J&K CSR, proper recommendation to in­clude the name of Sh. Farooq Ahmad Khan and Javed Ahmad Bhat shall be made separately."

Apparently pursuant to the afore­said report and recommendations, Gov­ernment issued Order No. 41-Coop of 2011 dated 05.08.2011 whereby the appellant was transferred from ACCB and attached with respondent No. 2. pending enquiry into charges against him. The appellant challenged the aforesaid Government order dated 05.08.2011 through writ petition, SWP No. 1692/2011, and the order was stayed by the learned Writ Court vide order dated 09.08.2011, as a result the appellant continued to function on his post in ACCB.

3. In the meantime, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 24.08.2011, appointed a team of officers to hold a detailed en­quiry on the areas highlighted in the complaints. The Enquiry Committee thus constituted, submitted its report to respondent No. 2 vide No. Adl/Adm/1584-85 dated 19.01.2012. In the said report, the Enquiry Committee clearly indicted the appellant and the General Manager of the Bank with serious im­putations of connivance between them aimed at causing huge financial losses to the Bank.

4. The aforesaid report of the En­quiry Committee did not evoke any ac­tion; instead respondent No. 1, issued Government Order No. 02/Coop of 2012 dated 03.02.2012, ordering the appel­lant to look after the charge of the post of General Manager, ACCB.

5. It appears that one Bilal Ahmad Khan a lonee of ACCB, who was one of the complainants in the earlier com­plaints, made a representation to the Minister Incharge, Cooperatives, J&K, bringing to his notice the corrupt prac­tices of the appellant and requesting therein to shift the appellant from ACCB. Sensing some trouble, the ap­pellant filed another writ petition, SWP 290/2012, praying for forbidding the respondents from causing any interfer­ence in his status. The said writ peti­tion was disposed of at the threshold on 23.2.2012, however, with direction that till appropriate orders are passed, the present status of the petitioner shall be maintained.

6. Aforesaid Bilal Ahmad Khan also filed a writ petition, OWP No. 174/2012, challenging the Government order dated 03.02.2012. In the said writ peti­tion, the learned Writ Court passed a detailed order, which is reproduced hereunder:

"... While considering this petition, it transpired that the Court had only yesterda