2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14430
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mohd Sohail Mir – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Department – Respondent
T.A./45/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing Transfer Application No. 45/2022 Reserved on: -04.08.2025 Pronounced on: - 18.12.2025 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Mohd. Sohail Mir aged 37 years Son of Mohd. Rafiq Mir, R/o Shaheedi Chowk, Jammu.
…Applicants (Advocate: - Mr. Pankaj Jamwal)
Versus
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K Government, Srinagar.
3. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu.
…Respondent (Advocate:- Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. DAG)
ORDER Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.1073/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.45/2022 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing Order No.182 DCJ of 2016 dated 02.05.2016 issued by the respondent no.4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service under sub-rule (viii) of Rule 30 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1956 and he has been declared disqualified for any future employment under the State, being totally illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate back the petitioner in service as Patwari and grant him all consequential benefits to which he is otherwise legally entitled to.
c) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No.
1073/2016, which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and registered before this Tribunal as TA No. 45/2022. The applicant, Mohd. Sohail Mir, was appointed as a Patwari in the Revenue Department after having duly qualified the selection process conducted by the J&K Services Selection Board. While discharging his duties as Patwari at Sehora in February 2010, he was allegedly trapped by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, resulting in registration of FIR No. 04/2010 under the provisions of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
b) Upon completion of investigation, a challan was presented before the Court of the Learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu. The applicant asserts that the evidence adduced during trial was neither cogent nor convincing so as to warrant conviction; however, the trial court, by judgment dated 25.04.2016, convicted the applicant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 RPC, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year with fine.
c) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 24/2016 before the Hon’ble High Court, wherein he was admitted to bail vide order dated 28.04.2016. During the pendency of the said criminal appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu issued Order No. 182-DCJ of 2016 dated 02.05.2016, dismissing the applicant from service under Rule 30(viii) of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, and further declaring him disqualified from future government employment.
d) The applicant challenges the said dismissal primarily on the grounds that the Deputy Commissioner was not the appointing authority and thus lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty of dismissal; that no departmental enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of hearing afforded before pa