Manzoor Hussain vs State Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1597 j&K

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU


                                               CRMC No. 208/2016
                                                c/w
                                               CRMC No. 204/2016

1. Manzoor Hussain                                    .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
2. Subash Chander Sharma

                              Through :- Mr. S. H. Rather, Advocate
                                         in CRMC No. 208/2016
                                         Mr. Dhiraj Choudhary, Advocate in
                                         CRMC No. 204/2016

                        v/s

1. State of J&K and others                                     .....Respondent(s)
2. State of J&K and another

                              Through :- Mr. Jamrodh Singh, GA


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                               JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners in these petitions have impugned the same FIR

bearing No. 78/2005 dated 11.11.2005 registered with Police Station,

Mandi, District Poonch for commission of offences under sections

467, 468, 420, 471 and 120-B RPC as such, both the petitions are

taken up together.

2. The petitioner-Manzoor Hussain in CRMC No. 208/2016 was

working in the Education Department and superannuated in the year,

2004. In the year, 2000 when the petitioner was posted as Incharge

ZEO, Mandi, the Government launched a scheme commonly known

as Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme. The aim and object of the said

scheme was to provide education by engaging community member

CRMC No. 204/2016

called as ReT. The ReT was to be selected and engaged by a duly

constituted Village Education Committee (VEC) comprising of

prominent citizens of the locality headed by the ZEO. The ReT was

to be engaged only after the VEC scrutinized the credentials of the

applicant & made recommendations to the Deputy Commissioner.

After approval accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, the formal

engagement order was to be issued by the ZEO. As far as the

Village, Sawjian is concerned, that falls in Zone Mandi, a panel of

eligible candidates was prepared by the VEC where after the names

of the meritorious candidates fully eligible in all respects were

recommended before the Deputy Commissioner Poonch, who was

Chairman of the selection committee at the relevant point of time and

after the approval by the Deputy Commissioner Poonch, the

petitioner who was ZEO Mandi in the year, 2000 issued formal order

in favour of the candidates so approved by the Deputy Commissioner

Poonch.

3. That in the year, 2005, one Riaz Ahmed initiated criminal

proceedings against the engagement of one Farooq Ahmed who was

engaged as ReT in the year, 2000 that resulted in registration of FIR

bearing No. 78/2005 in Police Station, Mandhi (for short the FIR

impugned) for commission of offences under sections 420, 467, 468,

471 and 120-B RPC against the persons excluding the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that for the last more than 10 years, the

petitioner was never served with any notice or summon by the

Investigating Agency in the aforesaid FIR and neither he was aware

of the status of any such investigation. It was only a few days back

CRMC No. 204/2016

when the police officials of Police Station, Mandi started visiting the

residence of petitioner and extended threats of involving the

petitioner in the aforesaid FIR and the petitioner came to know that

the aforesaid FIR was initially closed by the Police as not proved and

final report was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Poonch. That once the final report was submitted before the

competent court then the petitioner was not aware on whose

directions, fresh process was started in the same FIR. It is further

submitted that the Reyaz Ahmed who was the candidate in the wait

list, even filed a writ petition against the selection of Farooq Ahmed,

that was dismissed by this Court and LPA was also dismissed. The

FIR has been impugned on the following grounds:

(a) That the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR.

(b) That the cause of action alleged to have been accrued in the

year, 2000 and the FIR impugned came to be registered

after lapse of more than five years

(c) That the petitioner cannot be put to harassment in the garb

of so called investigation that is pending investigation for

more than 10 years and the delay in investigation is

sufficient for quashing the FIR.

(d) that the petitioner at the relevant point of time acted like a

prudent man and the documents produced by the concerned

candidates prima facie appeared to be genuine subject to the

verification made by the independent agency.

5. Response stands filed by the respondents in which it is stated that on

10.01.2005 complainant, namely, Rayaz Ahmed S/o Abdul Hamid

CRMC No. 204/2016

Caste Banday R/o Sawajian Tehsil Mandi produced a written

complaint duly endorsed by Senior Superintendent of Police Poonch

to PP Sawajian to the effect that the complainant applied for the post

of ReT in the year, 2000 in the office of ZEO Mandi. The

complainant figured at serial No. 4 whereas Farooq Ahmed and

Tazeem Akhter figured at serial No. 2 and 3 respectively. Both of

them were appointed as ReTs by the competent authority and the

complainant was not selected. It is further stated that the complainant

came to know about the fake and tampered mark sheet produced by

Farooq Ahmed about 10 days back when Farooq Ahmed was

removed from service by the Director Education Department. This

illegal act has been committed with the connivance of Sarpanch

Nisar Ahmed Shah and officials of Zonal Education Office Mandi.

6. Pursuant to this, FIR impugned was registered. Investigation was

conducted and as per report of Jammu and Kashmir Board of School

Education, the marks sheet of 12th in respect of Farooq Ahmed was

not in accordance with the record of the Board and Farooq Ahmed

produced another marks sheet of Patna University that was also

verified and found correct by the concerned University and I.O

closed the investigation of the case as final report No. 11/2012. The

complainant was called by the learned CJM Poonch who appeared in

person and lodged his protest that the investigation was conducted by

the Investigating Officer in a casual manner without reaching to

logical conclusion by leaving the investigation mid way and closed

the case. Accordingly, the learned CJM Poonch vide his order dated

27.05.2015 directed the SSP Poonch to conduct the further thorough

CRMC No. 204/2016

investigation of the case and also impressed upon to initiate

departmental inquiry against the Investigating Officer who

conducted the investigation in the instant case in a casual manner. As

per directions of CJM Poonch, further investigation was conducted

and as per the investigation, it was found that the ZEO concerned

and Senior Assistant prepared two panels and submitted to the

Deputy Commissioner. In the first panel, Farooq Ahmed was

figuring at serial No. 11 and complainant was figuring at serial No.

06 and in the second panel Farooq Ahmed's name figured at serial

No. 01 and Tazeem Akhter at serial No. 02. In the second panel

complainant's name did not exist although one person namely Reyaz

Ahmed existed at serial No. 03. The first panel was approved by two

officers and second panel was approved by 03 officers with the

direction to ZEO Mandi that the original documents of all the

candidates must be checked before issuing necessary orders. The

District Development Commissioner issued formal order dated

14.06.2000 for engagement of Farooq Ahmed and Tazeen Akhter as

ReTs with the direction to the ZEO Mandi for proper verification of

their original documents before issuing final order in favour of the

candidates. While ignoring the direction of their seniors, the then

ZEO Mandhi petitioner herein and his Senior Assistant in the office,

petitioner in CRMC No. 204/2016 issued order in favour of

candidates without proper checking and verification of original

documents and posted Farooq Ahmed at M.S Sundry and Tazeem

Akhter at Middle School Gagrian. In the year, 2005, both the

candidates completed their five years as Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher

CRMC No. 204/2016

and became eligible for appointment as General Line Teacher in the

Education Department. The then Chief Education Officer, Poonch

constituted a Screening Committee for verification of

documents/certificate of all ReTs of District for their regularization

as General Line Teacher. During verification, the Screening

Committee Member scrutinized the documents submitted by Farooq

Ahmed and Tazeem Akhter for verification and found mismatch in

the Date of Birth of Tazeem Akhter and directed her to provide

original diploma of 10th Class and during verification of original

mark sheet of 12th Class in respect of Farooq Ahmed , the Committee

detected the tampering in the name, parentage, sessions and detail of

subjects on marks sheet. On this, then ZEO Mandi directed the

Headmaster Middle School Sundry not to allow Farooq Ahmed to

sign on arrival register of the School. During the course of

investigation, the 10th Class mark sheet of Tazeem Akhter and 12th

Class mark sheet of the Farooq Ahmed were got verified from

JKBOSE Jammu and as per report submitted by JK BOSE, the mark

sheet of Tazeem Akhter was in accordance with the record of Board

whereas mark sheet of Higher Secondary School of Farooq Ahmed

was not in accordance with the record of Board. The same was got

examined by the expert by the Scientific Expert, FSL Jammu and as

per expert report marks of physical erasures have been detected in

name, parentage, sessions and details of subjects.

7. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the Investigating

Officer has proved the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and

CRMC No. 204/2016

120-B RPC against the petitioners herein, whereas no offence has

been proved against Tazeem Akhter.

8. Learned counsels for the petitioners in both the petitions have

vehemently submitted that the names of the petitioners do not figure

in the impugned FIR and once the investigation in the FIR was

closed as not proved, then the subsequent investigation could not

have been conducted by the respondents and further that there has

been an inordinate delay in the investigation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently

submitted that as per the response, the investigation was conducted

pursuant to the directions of CJM, Poonch vide his order dated

27.05.2015 and the Investigating Officer has proved the offence

against both the petitioners.

10. Heard and perused the record.

11. From the record, it is evident that the allegations against the

petitioner-Manzoor Hussain, the then ZEO and Subash Chander

Sharma, the then Senior Assistant in the office of ZEO Mandi are

that they did not check and verify the documents furnished by

Farooq Ahmed for the purpose of securing engagement as ReT. In

the FIR, it has been mentioned that this illegal act has been

committed in connivance with the officials ZEO Mandi. It requires to

be noted that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia. Once during the

course of investigation, it was found that both the petitioners

Manzoor Hussain, and Subash Chander Sharma, was the ZEO and

Senior Assistant respectively at the relevant point of time when the

appointment was issued in favour of Farooq Ahmed, no fault can be

CRMC No. 204/2016

found so far as FIR impugned is concerned, as such, this contention

of the petitioner is rejected. The second contention is that the

investigation was closed and without there being any order, there

cannot be further investigation. In the response, the respondents have

categorically stated that the matter was further investigated pursuant

to the directions of CJM Poonch vide his order dated 27.05.2015 so

this ground too pales into insignificance particularly when the said

order has not been impugned by the petitioners. The third contention

of the petitioner that the documents furnished by the Farooq Ahmed

appeared to be genuine, cannot be considered at this stage. The last

contention of the petitioner is with regard to the delay in the

investigation. It needs to be noted that the FIR was lodged in the year

2005 and the same was closed as not admitted on 10.07.2012 and

thereafter CJM Poonch vide order dated 27.05.2015 directed SSP,

Poonch to conduct the further investigation and initiate departmental

enquiry against the Investigating Officer. So merely on the ground of

delay, the FIR impugned and investigation conducted pursuant

thereto cannot be quashed.

12. There are serious allegations against the petitioner Manzoor Hussain

and his Senior Assistant Subash Chander Sharma that they did not

verify the education testimonials of Farooq Ahmed at the time of

issuing appointment order in utter disregard of the directions issued

by the Senior Officers for proper checking and verification of

documents before issuing any formal order.

CRMC No. 204/2016

13. Thus, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to show any

indulgence to quash the FIR, as such, the present petition is found to

be without merit and is dismissed.

14. The petitioner-Subash Chander Sharma in CRMC No. 204/12016

who was the Senior Assistant in the office of ZEO Mandi at the

relevant point of time has raised similar contentions those have been

considered by this Court as mentioned above, as such, this petition

too stands dismissed.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge JAMMU 03.12.2021 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No