Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 17: Plugging major lacunae in the Jammu and Kashmir State Vigilance Commission Rules, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan today made examination of final report in the five FIRs in the infamous Roshni Land Scam time-bound. While directing Chief Vigilance Commissioner to complete the process within two weeks, the DB has made it clear that in case of non-compliance, the Commissioner shall have to file personal explanation.
When the Public Interest Litigation titled Prof S K Bhalla Versus State and Others was taken up for hearing, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmad appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in the status report vis-à-vis five FIRs the Vigilance Organization has mentioned the name of only one Deputy Commissioner and concealed the names of other accused officers. “If the allegations in these five FIRs have been established what is the harm in mentioning the names of all the accused officers. People have the right to know the names of such officers”, he said.
Mr Ahmad also expressed apprehension over timely accord of prosecution sanction in these five FIRs and said, “even the Principal Accountant General, J&K in the report has clearly mentioned non-cooperation from the Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner Revenue and Secretary Revenue as such this court should issue necessary orders”.
The counsel for the PIL also pointed out the lacunae in Rule 24(1) of J&K State Vigilance Commission Rules, 2013 where under the final report along with CD files vis-à-vis five FIRs have been submitted to the Commission by the Vigilance Organization. “This Rule is completely silent about the time-frame within which the Commission is required to send back the FIRs to the Vigilance Organization for launch of prosecution against the in-service public servants”, he added.
It is pertinent to mention here that EXCELSIOR in its today’s edition has exclusively highlighted this lacunae by mentioning that SVC Rules don’t fix time-frame for SVC to recommend action in the FIRs forwarded to it after completion of investigation.
Advocate Ahmad also sought the intervention of Division Bench in ascertaining the status of all the 547 instances of abuse of the Roshni Scheme pointed out by the Principal Accountant General in the report in respect of six test checked districts. He also drew the attention of DB towards FIR No.6 of 2014, which was registered prior to five other FIRs which have been concluded as proved. “There seems to be deliberate attempt on the part of State Vigilance Organization to shield the accused in this particular case for the obvious reasons”, he added.
On being asked by the Division Bench, Senior Additional Advocate General, Gagan Basotra appearing for the State submitted that FIR No.6 of 2014 will be sent to the Vigilance Commission within a period of one week.
After hearing counsels for the PIL and the Government, the Division Bench, while plugging the lacunae in the SVC Rules directed the Chief Vigilance Commissioner to complete the process of examining the matter for according sanction to launch prosecution against the in-service public servants within a period of two weeks from today. “If the needful is not done then the personal explanation of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner shall be filed detailing the reasons for not completing the process within the time given”, the DB made it clear.
About disclosing of names of accused officers and apprehension vis-à-vis delay in accord of prosecution sanction, the DB said, “these aspects will be considered after the papers are sent for according sanction to launch prosecution against the in-service public servants”, adding “we will certainly make this exercise time-bound”.
The DB also directed Director Vigilance to disclose the status of 547 cases pointed out by the Audit in six districts by filing status report before the next date of hearing, which is February 2, 2015.
Follow our WhatsApp channel