Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 26: High Court while refusing to quash the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) against revenue official, observed that the purpose of verification of the complaints and holding of PE is to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint, otherwise a public servant would be susceptible to reckless prosecution and no public servant would be able to take decisions in a free and fair manner.
“It is for this reason that before registration of an FIR against a public servant, in matters relating to corruption, the case is examined and verified by adopting any of the modes provided in Clause 3.7 of the Vigilance Manual”, Justice Sanjay Dhar said, adding “holding of a preliminary enquiry into the allegations made in the complaint is in the interest of the public servant, otherwise, if an FIR is registered straightway without undertaking any verification, there is every chance that the public servant may be exposed to reckless prosecution”.
“The petitioner, in the instant matter, without waiting for the result of the Preliminary Enquiry, has rushed to this court and filed the instant petition challenging the process adopted by the ACB, Jammu, which apparently is for safeguarding the interest of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, premature in nature”, Justice Dhar said.
In the petition filed by Shashi Pal Singh it has been mentioned that he was appointed as Patwari on 08.08.2002 and promoted as Girdawar in April 2022. It is submitted that Mutation No. 1351 dated 18.11.1987 was attested by the revenue officer under Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act with respect to the land measuring 4 kanal in Khasra No. 1255 min at village Sarore tehsil Bishnah where after Mutation No. 1357 dated 16.11.1987 was attested by the concerned revenue officer under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
It is also averred that respondents filed an appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu against the orders of mutations which is still pending before him. It is further submitted that respondents have also filed a civil suit against Rajinder Singh and others seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 18.12.2009 executed by deceased Gian Singh as null and void and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo in terms of order passed in the suit.
On the basis of these assertions, it has been contended that the petitioner has done nothing wrong and, as such, it was not open to the ACB Jammu to call him for questioning in connection with verification of the complaint stated to have been filed by respondents. It has been further contended that because the litigation in respect of mutations in question is pending before the revenue court and civil court, as such, no verification could have been initiated against the petitioner.
Follow our WhatsApp channel