Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Jan 24: State High Court today declined to stay the operation of show cause notice served by Higher Education Department to Prof Nutan Kumar Resutra mentioning the penalty proposed to be imposed on him under J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 for causing loss to the State exchequer during his posting as Principal of Government Degree College, Rajouri.
In the show cause notice, Higher Education Department has mentioned that on the basis of enquiry into payment of excessive rate in purchase and installation of Wi-Fi system and misappropriation of local funds in the Government Degree College, Rajouri, it has been decided to impose penalty on Prof Nutan under J&K Civil Services Rules, 1956.
The department has proposed penalty of reduction to a lower post and recovery of Rs 1,37,500 from Prof Nutan’s pay on account of pecuniary loss caused to the Government exchequer.
Against this decision, Prof Nutan filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking quashment of final show-cause notice whereby he has been given an opportunity to show cause against penalty proposed to be imposed.
However, after hearing Advocate Ajay Sharma for the petitioner, Government Advocate Monish Chopra and Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmad, who proposes to lay motion for impleadment as party respondent on the ground that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the directions passed by the Division Bench in PIL titled Sheikh Mohd Shafi Versus Union of India, Justice Hasnain Massodi simply issued notice for filing reply and objections, if any, by next date of hearing.
“Though counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of Supreme Court insists on grant of ad-interim injunction yet I am of the opinion that such a prayer can be considered after other side is given opportunity to file objections”, Justice Massodi said while issuing notice.
“In the meantime, pendency of petition shall not stand in the way of petitioner to submit reply to show cause notice to convince disciplinary authority that the penalty proposed is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case”, High Court said, adding “the respondents on their part shall provide material, whatever required, to the petitioner under rules and not provided till date”.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel