CRM(M)/467/2021 of NAFIA NAZIR Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT) on 31 December 2021

ORDER

31.12.2021

Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has sought a direction upon respondent No. 5-Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kashmir for completion of preliminary verification in the case bearing No. PVK No. 79/2021. It appears that the petitioner was holding the post of Executive Assistant with the respondent No. 3. Certain Audit observation have been made during the audit inspection wherein it was remarked that the post of Executive Assistant post held by the petitioner was already being held by one Ms. Wafa Bhat, who had proceeded on leave and that the said post was to be held by the petitioner for a period of one year or till Ms. Wafa Bhat resumed her duty. It appears that a subsequent observation was made by the Audit Committee. Excerpts whereof have been reproduced in the petition and the same are given as under:

“It is a matter of interpretation of codal provision whether the post of Executive Assistant could have been advertised in the given circumstances and also whether Ms. Nafia Nazir could have been appointed against the said post of Executive Assistant before forfeiture of claim of Ms. Wafa Bhat to resume her duties in terms of Order No. JKEDI/H-181 dated 25.03.2013.”

P a g e | 2CRM(M) No. 467/2021 CrlM No. 1500/2021

Petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1465/2021 seeking certain directions against the respondent No. 4 herein and in the said writ petition, the aforesaid facts were highlighted by the petitioner. The writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 02.08.2021 whereby petitioner was asked to submit a representation qua grievance projected in the writ petition before the respondent therein and the said respondent was asked to accord consideration to the same on its own merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of said representation.

It seems that pursuant to aforesaid order petitioner has made representation before respondent no. 4 but the representation has not been disposed of as the said respondent has intimated the petitioner that respondent No. 5 who is conducting the preliminary verification has precluded any further action on the representation of the petitioner. Now the petitioner has moved the instant petition seeking a direction upon the respondent No. 5-Crime Branch, Kashmir to culminate the preliminary verification registered as PVK No. 79/2021 without being influenced by the comments of the Finance Department or any other authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has submitted that petitioner would feel satisfied if the petition is disposed of by directing respondent no. 5-Crime Branch, Kashmir to expedite the preliminary verification into the aforesaid case after taking into consideration the audit observation made vide No. JKEDI/J/GO/2013/616-20 dated 25.03.2013. Learned counsel has further submitted that even otherwise respondent No. 5 is obliged to complete preliminary verification within a period of seven days as per the ratio laid down in the judgment of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U. P, 2014 (2) SCC 1

Arguments

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.5-Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kashmir to conclude the preliminary verification in the case bearing registration No. PVK No.79/2021 expeditiously with a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. While doing so, respondent No. 5 shall accord due consideration to all the facts and contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition, whereafter an appropriate view independent of the views taken by any other authority, shall be taken by the respondent No. 5-Crime Branch, Kashmir. The petitioner shall provide a copy of this order along with a copy of the petition to respondent No. 5 forthwith.

Disposed of as above.

SRINAGAR31.12.2021“Aasif

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge