Hearing commences in 35 SAC cases
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 8: After remaining in the ‘cold storage’ for period ranging between five to seven years, 35 cases challenging the proceedings initiated by the State Accountability Commission (SAC) came up for hearing in the High Court today with several lawyers arguing that as per the Accountability Commission Act of 2002 and Rules of 2005, the Commission has no powers to take suo-moto actions. After about one and half hour long arguments, Justice Hasnain Masoodi adjourned the hearing till first week of July with the directions to the Advocates representing Accountability Commission to remain ready for rebuttal on next date.
As soon as the matter was taken up, Additional Advocate General, Gagan Basotra, informed the Court that due to some reasons, Advocate General could not make himself available before the Bench. He requested the Court to adjourn the case so that he may file detailed written objections. However, the Court declined his request and started hearing.
Initiating the arguments on the question whether Accountability Commission has the powers to take suo-moto actions, Senior Advocate U K Jalali, who was appearing in Satvir Gupta Vs SAC case, submitted, “neither the parent Act nor Rules give any power to the Accountability Commission to take suo-moto cognizance”.
While making use of the enabling provision in the parent Act under Section 31, the Commission has laid down certain Regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Act and Regulation No.9 defines the procedure for suo-moto actions. “Since the Act is completely silent on the suo-moto actions, the Commission cannot only bank upon the Regulation No.9 while initiating suo-moto actions”, Senior Advocate Jalali said while describing this Regulation as ultravires of the main act.
“The Act is like a power house as such the Regulations itself cannot become source of power”, he further said, adding “due to suo-moto cognizance, the provisions laid down under Sections 11 and 12 are getting violated”.
The Section 11 states that every complaint made under the Act shall be accompanied by prescribed affidavit while as Section 12 talks about the preliminary scrutiny of complaints by the Accountability Commission.
Advocate Ajay Sharma, in his arguments, brought the attention of the High Court towards Section 11, which also states that a complaint can be made by aggrieved as well as non-aggrieved person. “In case of person aggrieved is dead or, is for any reason unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made or continued by his legal representatives or by any other person who is authorized by him in writing”, he said, adding “this shows there is no scope for suo-moto actions”.
He also pointed towards that Section 24, which speaks about the penalty on the complainant in case the allegations turn malafide.
Similarly, Advocate Virender Bhat also argued on several sections of the Act.
After one and half hour long arguments, Justice Hasnain Masoodi adjourned all the matters for first week of July subject to availability of bench. He asked the Advocates representing SAC to remain ready for rebuttal on next date.
Senior Advocates Sunil Sethi, D S Thakur and Advocate H S Jalmeria appeared on behalf of SAC. On the conclusion of hearing, Advocate Jalmeria submitted that suo-moto power should be retained as Accountability Commission is an anti-graft body.
The cases pending for the past five to seven years pertain to SAC proceedings against Arvind Sharma in wheat grinding scam also involving the then Minister for CAPD, Taj Mohi-ud-Din (presently Minister for PHE, Irrigation and Flood Control), proceedings against the then Minister for Health, Suman Bhagat and her PRO Vikas Behal for their involvement in illegal nominations in AMT Schools at Jammu and Srinagar.
Similarly, SAC proceedings against former Deputy Chief Minister, Mangat Ram Sharma for his involvement in illegal appointments scam in Khadi Village and Industries Board (KVIB), Minister of State for Cooperative, Dr Manohar Lal Sharma in a housing cooperative society scam, Commission’s action against the then Minister for Rural Development and presently Minister for Public Enterprises, Peerzada Mohammad Sayeed in rural electrification scam and his involvement in use of unfair means by his foster son in Board of School Education (BOSE) exam and proceedings against the then Minister of State and presently MLA Doda, Abdul Majid Wani in multi crore timber scam could not be taken to logical conclusion because of interim directions from the High Court.
The SAC had also initiated proceedings against the then DIG Satvir Gupta in Disproportionate Assets case and Dr Mohd Deen, the then Commissioner Secretary Animal Husbandry Department and Dr Satvir Gupta, the then Director Sheep Husbandry for causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer. As far as Dr Deen and Dr Gupta are concerned, the Accountability Commission had recommended termination of their services and forfeiture of their pensionary benefits.
It had recommended termination of services of Farid Ahmed Tak, the then Executive Engineer Power Development Department and initiated proceedings against Sheikh Rafiq Ahmed, the then Additional DC Jammu in fake PRCs case.
The SAC had also initiated proceedings against Ravinder Gupta, the then Director Youth Services and Sports. He was recently attached with the office of the Registrar Cooperatives Societies pending enquiry against him into numerous complaints of financial and other irregularities in the JAKFED during his tenure as Managing Director.
Farhat Qureshi, the then Secretary Housing Board was also facing SAC proceedings but due to interim directions from the High Court the same could not be taken to logical conclusion like numerous other cases involving bureaucrats like Atal Duloo (presently Commissioner Secretary Tourism) and Ashok Parmar, the then Vice-Chairman Jammu Development Authority.
Mohinder Singh, Chairman Jammu Central Cooperative Bank Limited and Arun Bakshi, OSD to the Chairman of the Bank have also obtained interim orders from the High Court after SAC initiated proceedings against him along with Minister of State for Cooperatives, Dr Manohar Lal Sharma in the recent past.
Follow our WhatsApp channel