Disciplinary authority cannot review its quasi-judicial decision closing proceedings with warning after preliminary enquiry; fresh enquiry on same allegations impermissible without statutory review power.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. Through the medium of the present judgment, the afore-titled two connected petitions filed by the writ petitioner are proposed to be disposed of.

02. Vide SWP No. 918/2012, the petitioner has challenged Order No. 467-LC of 2011 dated 15.09.2011 whereby two annual increments of the petitioner have been forfeited whereas, vide SWP No. 803/2013, the petitioner has challenged Order No. LD (PAB) 2011/Comp. dated 03.04.2013 whereby a committee has been constituted for holding an enquiry against the petitioner with regard to submission of fake date of birth certificate.

03. As per case of the petitioner, he is working as Special Assistant to Chairman, J&K Legislative Council. It has been submitted that a complaint, alleging that the petitioner had produced a fake date of birth certificate at the time of his initial appointment by projecting his date of birth as 28.03.1975 instead of 28.03.1973, was made against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the Council Secretariat constituted an Enquiry Committee vide Order No. 393/LC/2006 dated 04.10.2006 to ascertain the actual date of birth of the petitioner. The Committee is stated to have made a recommendation that the petitioner should be reverted to his next lower post but the competent authority, the Chairman, J&K Legislative Council.

04. The Chairman, J&K Legislative Council disagreed with the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee and instead administered a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future. It was also directed that correct entries with regard to date of birth of the petitioner be recorded in his service book after proper verification. Accordingly, vide Council Secretariat Order No. 261/LC/2007 dated 20.03.2007, the petitioner was warned to be careful in future and he was further directed to produce correct date of birth certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished the correct date of birth certificate.

05. It has been submitted that Government of J&K General Administrative Department in the meantime issued Circular No. 14 GAD/2007 dated 19.04.2007 granting amnesty to the employees, who had indulged in manipulation of their recorded date of birth. The Scheme of amnesty was available till 30.05.2007. It has been contended that the petitioner’s case is covered by the said Scheme, though even before coming into effect of said Scheme, he had furnished the correct date of birth certificate pursuant to Order dated 20.03.2007 issued by the Council Secretariat whereby he was warned to be careful in future.

06. It has been further submitted that another complaint came to be filed against the petitioner on the basis of same allegations. The petitioner made a representation to the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs in which it was mentioned that enquiry against him had already been closed and he had been warned to be careful in future. However, an order bearing No. 453/LC/2011 dated 24.01.2011 came to be issued whereby a recommendation was made for taking action against the petitioner for submitting fake matriculation certificate. This order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition bearing SWP No. 367/2011.

07. It has been submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a fresh enquiry under Rule 33 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Rules of 1956” came to be initiated against the petitioner whereafter a report was submitted to the competent authority on 24.05.2011