IMPORTANT POINT : Authority competent to impose penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank alone is supposed to arrive at provisional conclusion in regard to penalty to be imposed after enquiry against Government servant has been completed.

Judgment :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

The petitioner, who was serving as Munsiff Pulwama in Kashmir Division, was removed from the judicial service by the Governor of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir vide Government Order No.3337-LD(A) of 2019 dated 23.07.2019 [“the impugned order’]. The impugned order has been passed by the Governor on the recommendations of the Full Court that the petitioner, in view of his proven misconduct, was not worthy of retention in the judicial service.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the impugned order as also the enquiry report dated 06.07.2018 and a show cause notice issued by this Court proposing penalty of removal of the petitioner from service vide Registrar General’s communication No. 49220/GS dated 31.12.2018. The petitioner additionally seeks to assail the recommendations made by the Full Court to the Governor of then State of Jammu and Kashmir for imposition of penalty of his removal from the judicial service. The petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to treat him in service with all consequential service benefits.

3. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge pleaded in the petition and urged by Mr. G.A.Lone, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, it would be appropriate to allude to the factual antecedents leading to the removal of the petitioner from service. Pursuant to his selection made by the J&K Public Service Commission and on the recommendations of this Court, the petitioner was appointed as Munsiff in the year 2003. After serving at different places, the petitioner, in the year 2010, was transferred and posted as Munisff Pulwama where he rendered his services from 08.08.2010 to 01.09.2012. In the month of January, 2011, when the petitioner was nominated as Duty Magistrate during winter vacations, he, exercising the powers of Sub-Registrar of the District, registered five sale deeds (one registered on 12.01.2011 and four on 13.1.2011). These sale deeds were in respect of 450 kanals and 17 marls of land belonging to a migrant. On the allegation that five sale deeds of immovable property belonging to the migrant were registered by the petitioner by facilitating the evasion of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.32.00 lacs in conspiracy with Nazir Ahmed Naqash and others [“the vendees’], one Bashir Ahmed Khanday, son of Abdul Razak Khanday, resident of Khandaypora, Awantopora made a written complaint to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India with a copy to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court.

4. It appears that the complaint filed by Bashir Ahmed Khanday was taken cognizance of by the then Lord Chief Justice of this Court and respondent No.3, who was then the District and Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry. The preliminary enquiry conducted by respondent No.3 revealed, prima facie, involvement of the petitioner in a serious misconduct and, accordingly, the matter was placed before the Full Court. The Full Court, after perusing the preliminary enquiry report submitted by respondent No.3, proposed to hold a regular enquiry against the petitioner in terms of Rule 33 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1956 [“the Rules of 1956’]. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with a Statement of Article of charges and a Statement of allegations in support of the charges framed against him. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence. The petitioner responded to the charges and claimed to be innocent. Finding that the defence of the petitioner and his plea of innocence was not satisfactory, this Court appointed initially Justice Hasnain Massodi, thereafter, on his superannuation, Justice Tashi Rabstan as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the regular enquiry into the charges. Before the Enquiry Officer, the High Court examined Mohd Yousaf Wani, the then