Srinagar:The High Court of J&K and Ladakh held that the criminal proceedings pending against a father cannot form the basis for terminating government service of his son, as penal liability is personal in nature and cannot be inherited by legal heirs.
The Court passed the stricture in a writ petition challenging an order where a Class-IV employee of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat, was suspended purportedly in connection with a criminal case registered against his father under the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice Rahul Bharti while going through the details of the case said that the penal act does/do not pass on to the legal heir/s of an accused person on the basis of criminal jurisprudence.
Justice Bharti recorded that “if the petitioner’s father was allegedly found to be involved in acts of omission or commission amounting to offence under section 5 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, the same does not mean that the petitioner is to be perceived, projected, painted and put to bad treatment as being delivered to him in the form of the suspension order”.
The petitioner submitted before Court that since his appointment in 2014, he has discharged his duties without any adverse remarks or allegations relating to his service conduct. However, in May 2021 he was handed down with a suspension order merely on the basis of corruption allegations against his father which were initiated by vigilance organization in 2015. In 2017 the father came to be arrested but was released on bail.
“The suspension order did not attribute any act of omission or commission to the petitioner himself and merely cited a reference to the initiation of “Simultaneous Department Action (RDA)” in the father’s case,” the petitioner said.
The Court while examining the details of the suspension order noted that it did not disclose any misconduct attributable to the petitioner in relation to his discharge of official duties.
It was observed that the order lacked reasons and failed to demonstrate that the petitioner’s continued service was detrimental to the public interest.
The Court said under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, for placing an employee on suspension were not applicable to the petitioner’s case.
It noted that while the respondents claimed a regular departmental enquiry had been initiated, no order setting up such an inquiry was referred to or annexed with their reply filed in January 2022.
The Court concluded that the suspension order was “utterly misconceived [and] vitiated with malice in law if not in fact”, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Rahul Bharti quashed the suspension order and directed that the petitioner be restored to service at the post from which he had been suspended. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Discover more from Bench&Law
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
