The Court affirmed that allegations of corruption and misconduct against public servants require thorough investigation, and powers to quash FIRs must be exercised cautiously.

1. Admit.

2. The counsel for the parties while taking notice at the post admission stage in these proceedings submit that the parties may be deemed not desirous to take further steps to supplement the pleadings on record and matter may be taken up for final disposal. This matter, on consensual submissions of the counsel for the parties, is accordingly taken up for final disposal.

3. Heard.

4. Petitioner an Assistant Professor in Paediatrics in Government Medical College, Srinagar and also posted in Government Hospital for Children Srinagar, has been booked in FIR 81/96 registered at Police Station VOK Srinagar for offences under S.5(2) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act , (hereafter for short 'PCA'), and S. 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other Provisions Act, 1983 (hereinafter Act of 1983) on allegation of indulgence in private practice during office hours in private clinics for illegal pecuniary considerations. By the alleged fraudulent and illegal medical private practice during office hours he has abused his position as public servant, thereby opened himself to charge of criminal misconduct. He is also booked in the FIR for amassing huge assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

5. The writ petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR, investigating proceedings and accord of sanction by Government vide Order dated 7-12-1998.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the launching of criminal proceedings and investigations of FIR is liable to be quashed on the ground that no offence under S.5(2) of PCA is made out and the offence under S.13/15 of the Act of 1983, if at all made out, apart from being dealt with departmentally, is covered by S.168, RPC, a non - cognizable offence for which the VOK cannot launch investigations. As ex facie no case is made out, therefore, impleading accused in the criminal case is ab initio without jurisdiction and void. Non - practising allowance (forbidden to be drawn in case of private practice) has been drawn without knowledge of the accused and even if the allowance is drawn to his knowledge then the matter comes within the J. and K. Government Doctors (Relaxation of Restrictions on Private Practice) Rules of 1987 made penal under S.15 of the Act of 1983.

7. The counsel for respondents submit that on the wide spread complaint that some of the doctors were attending private clinics during the office hours while pretending to be in their hospital or office during such hours and are earning monetary benefits by attending these clinics for medical advice / treatment. They also advise the patients as such Govt. doctors in Govt. hospitals to attend the private clinics and are charging huge amounts illegally and have accumulated huge assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. On enquiry made, it was found that the writ petitioner though in the employment of the State Government as member of Medical Education Gazetted Service and the Government Doctor did indulge in private Medical practice during office hours by abuse of his position, as such public servant. His clinic was raided on 31-10-1997 at 3.30 p.m. It was found that he was doing private Medical Practice charging Rs. 40/- as fee per patient and had collected by that time Rs. 920/- which amount was recovered from his attendant namely Gh. Mohd. Sheikh at the clinic. About Rs. 46,880/- as non - practising allowance from 10/90 to 11/97, is drawn by him illegally. Payment of this allowance was stopped to him only in De