Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Aug 15: The law laid down by the Supreme Court of India vis-à-vis prosecution sanction of the corrupt officers is being flouted with impunity in Jammu and Kashmir where authorities concerned take more than the permissible time in giving approval for prosecution proceedings against the ‘high-profile dishonest’ Government servants.
This can be gauged from the status of numerous cases of corruption involving senior functionaries of the Government wherein prosecution sanction has taken more than specified time-limit or more than the time consumed by the investigating agencies to prove the charges/ allegations against the Government officers.
As per the law laid down by Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy Versus Manmohan Singh and Another, all the proposals for sanction placed before any sanctioning authority empowered to grant sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act, must be decided within a period of three months of the receipt of proposal.
While giving grace period of another one month for any wider consultation on the prosecution sanction, the law states, “if no decision is taken even within the extended period, the sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the charge-sheet/ complaint in the court to commence prosecution”.
“But, in Jammu and Kashmir, law is being flouted with impunity and the sanctioning authorities stultifies judicial scrutiny and determination of the allegations against corrupt officials”, sources told EXCELSIOR.
According to the status of some cases with the State Vigilance Organization, over two and half year long investigation against KAS officer Babu Ram, then CDPO Doda and others for their involvement in illegal appointments of Anganwari workers and helpers was completed in June 29, 2011 and the case was sent to General Administration Department for prosecution sanction on August 3, 2011.
Following referral of his case for prosecution sanction, the KAS officer filed representation before GAD and the same was referred to Social Welfare Department on October 12, 2011 for comments. However, despite repeated reminders on December 15, 2011, March 9, 2012 and May 17, 2012, the Social Welfare Department didn’t furnish the comments, sources informed.
Similarly, three and half years long investigation against Mohammad Yousaf Bhat, then ACD Anantnag and others, who were booked for non-execution of electrification works of various Panchayat Ghars of District Anantnag, was completed by the Vigilance Organization on January 10, 2008 and the case was sent to the Government for prosecution sanction on January 15, 2008 but unfortunately the prosecution sanction has not been granted till date.
“The prosecution sanction in the much-publicized Gulmarg land scam involving then Divisional Commissioner, Mehboob Iqbal and then Deputy Commissioner Baramulla Baseer Ahmad Khan (presently Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar), is still awaited”, sources said. The Vigilance investigation into the case was completed in November 12, 2010 and the case sent to Government for prosecution sanction on December 9, 2010 and during the pendency of decision, Mehboob Iqbal attained superannuation in November 2011.
“Though no prior sanction is now required in his case yet no further step has been taken by the State Vigilance Organization even several months after his retirement”, sources said, adding “as far as Baseer Ahmad Khan is concerned, the decision by the Government is still awaited”.
The Vigilance Organization had sought prosecution sanction against KAS officer Ghulam Hassan Wani, the then Joint Registrar Cooperative, Kashmir for possessing disproportionate assets, on December 20, 2011 but the same has not been granted till date, sources said, adding “the case of IFS officer Farooq Ahmad Geelani, who was booked by the Vigilance Organization for misappropriation of funds during his posting as Chief Executive Officer IWDP Rambiara in 2003, was referred to the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests on March 20, 2012 but prosecution sanction is still awaited”.
Similarly, sanction for prosecution of two more IFS officers—Ajaz Ahmad and Abdul Gani Hajan, the then Managing Director SFC Baramulla and the then GM North SFC respectively, who had committed irregularities regarding allotment of contract for extraction and transportation of timber in 2008, is still awaited despite the fact that their cases were referred to the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest on June 22, 2011, sources disclosed.
They informed that sanction for prosecution of Ghulam Rasool Sofi, then Ancillary Labour FCI Godown, Sheikhpora, Budgam and Mohammad Maqbool Dar, then Manager SIDCO, who were trapped by the Vigilance while demanding and accepting bribe, has not been granted by the GM, FCI Jammu and MD J&K SIDCO despite the fact that the cases were sent to them on October 9, 2009 and November 15, 2010 respectively.
Likewise, the sanction for prosecution of P K Sethi, the then Divisional Manager SICOP Kashmir, M Y Ahanger, then Financial Advisor (M) SICOP, Shujat Ali Chala, then Junior Assistant SICOP, Syed Sibus Syedian, then Marketing Manager SICOP, Altaf Hussain Joo, then Deputy Financial Advisor SICOP, Mohammad Akbar Lone, then District Manager SICOP, Kupwara and Mohammad Yousaf Lone, then Marketing Manager, SICOP Srinagar was awaited from the Industries and Commerce Department and MD SICOP.
Sources informed that sanction for prosecution of Shaukat Ali Wani, then MD Handicrafts (S&E) Corporation, Ghulam Hassan Shalla, then Manager, Kashmir Government Arts Emporium (now retired) and Mohammad Ashraf Shalla, then Assistant Manager J&K Handicrafts Corporation, who were booked by the Vigilance Organization for misappropriation of funds on account of expenditure incurred for participation in Carpet Oasis Fair-2005 at Dubai (UAE), has not been granted till date.
“The representation of Shaukat Ali Wani was referred to Industries and Commerce Department on September 21, 2011 for comments followed by reminders on December 15, 2011, April 16, 2012 and May 24, 2012 but the Industries and Commerce Department has not responded till date”, sources said while describing the practice of taking note of corrupt officers’ representation as contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
“Grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi-judicial function and the person for whose prosecution sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the competent authority before it takes a decision in the matter. Whatever is required to be seen by the competent authority is whether the facts placed before it may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima-facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the competent authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of public servant then it is required to grant sanction and in case the satisfaction of the competent authority is otherwise then it can refuse the sanction”, the law states.
Sources further informed that the case diary relating to Tilak Raj Bhagat, then Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Kathua, who was booked by Vigilance Organization in 2008 for purchase of floronite concrete hardener on exorbitant rates, was sought by the Government from Vigilance Commissioner on January 19, 2012 but the same has not been submitted till date.
“In Disproportionate Assets case against Nazir Ahmad Choudhary, the then AEE in TLDC-1, Panama Chowk, Jammu registered in 2007, the Commissioner of Vigilance was requested on February 16, 2012 to furnish comments on the representation of the accused officer but the same was still awaited.
Similarly, in a case of making purchases on exorbitant rates registered against Puran Bharat Gandhi and D V Koul, the then XEns PWD registered in 2007, the Vigilance Organization was written by the Government in May 14, 2012 for clarification regarding certain issues pertaining to the facts of the case, sources said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel