Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 16: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasnthakumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan today modified the dismissal order of Sessions Judge to compulsory retirement.
The modification order was passed in a petition filed by Sain Dass, the then District and Sessions Judge, who challenged his dismissal.
After hearing Advocate KK Pangotra for the petitioner, the DB observed, “the petitioner passed away during the pendency of the writ petition on 31.03.2013 and having regard to the affidavits filed by the LRs of the deceased writ petitioner namely, widow as well as daughter dated 01.03.2016 and the fact that the writ petitioner served in subordinate judiciary for about 30 years, we are of the view that the order of dismissal passed against the writ petitioner is too harsh and the same can be modified to that of compulsory retirement from the date when the writ petitioner has completed his 58 years of age i.e. 31.12.2003 so that legal heirs will get the retirement benefits, arrears of pension from the date of retirement to the date of death and family pension from the date of the death”.
“The retirement benefits, arrears of pension payable to the deceased writ petitioner, family pension payable to the widow etc shall be calculated and paid to the legal representatives of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order”, the DB directed.
While the petitioner was posted as 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jammu, the then Acting Chief Justice on the basis of complaints from the members of the Bar as well as general public, on 26.05.2003 gave direction to the Registrar Vigilance to conduct enquiry. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 31.05.2003. The Registrar Vigilance after conducting enquiry submitted his report with remarks of serious suspicion on the working of the writ petitioner. Thereafter charge memo was issued on 03.06.2003. The writ petitioner submitted his objections and being not satisfied with the reason enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 04.08.2004, holding that charge has been fully established.
Before parting with the case, the DB observed, “we need to point out that this order having been passed on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case need not be mis-construed as giving an impression that this court is not serious about the allegations leveled against the writ petitioner particularly with regard to proven charges”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel