Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 25: Division Bench of the State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan today reserved its order in the controversial appointment of Prof N K Resutra as Chairman, J&K Board of School Education.
Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed drew the attention of the Division Bench to the affidavit filed by Secretary, Higher Education Department wherein it is stated that enquiry against Prof N K Resutra was withdrawn from the Commission of Inquiries and Director Colleges was appointed as Inquiry Officer.
Later, Kiran Bakshi, Principal, Govt. College for Women, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu senior to the accused officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer and examination of the enquiry report revealed that the Presenting Officer (Under Secretary, Higher Education Department) had not been summoned by the Inquiry Officer. Besides the accused officer had not been provided opportunity of oral enquiry. Further the Inquiry Officer had rendered findings only with regard to the excess payment in the purchase and installation of Wi-Fi system, when articles of charges served to the accused officer contained many more charges of irregularities and improper utilization of local funds of Government Degree College, Rajouri about which the inquiry officer had not made mention of.
The matter was referred back to the Enquiry Officer for doing the needful and he has summoned the Presenting Officer as also the accused officer and it is expected that the complete enquiry report may be furnished within 10-15 days.
Advocate Ahmed further submitted that since the enquiry was pending against Prof Resutra as such his name should not have been considered for the coveted post of Chairman BOSE. He also drew the attention of DB towards the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled Centre for PIL V/s Union of India in which Supreme Court quashed the appointment of P C Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner in view of the pendency of a corruption case against him.
“There are serious allegations of corruption and abuse of official position against Prof Resutra and his continuation on the post of Chairman BOSE is against settled legal position and public interest”, he said.
AAG Ravinder Sharma appearing for School Education Department fairly submitted that School Education Department had no knowledge about the pending enquiries against Prof Resutra and after getting the knowledge the School Education Department has requested the Higher Education Department to provide complete details of enquiries being conducted against Prof. Resutra.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi with Advocate Vaibhav Gupta appearing for Prof Resutra vociferously argued that the instant PIL was targeted against Prof Resutra and the Chairman BOSE was not found guilty by the SVO in its verification and only RDA (Regular Departmental Action) was recommended.
After hearing both the sides at length, the Division Bench reserved its orders in the open court.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel