FIR filed against him for ‘barging in his own office’, suspended for failure to demolish structures outside his jurisdiction
Srinagar, July 20: Can an official be accused of ‘illegally barging into his own office’ to discharge duties and FIR lodged against him? If your answer is in negative, you are wrong.
A Tehsildar in Dooru area of south Kashmir’s Anantnag district has been charged for “barging into his office” and an FIR lodged against him for it. Not only this, the Tehsildar has been singled out among the team of eighteen officials, constituted to demolishing some illegal structures in the district, and placed under suspension even as the area did not fall within his jurisdiction.
Earlier, the Tehsildar Dooru, Muzaffar Ahmad Malik, was “falsely” charged for not unfurling tricolor on Republic Day before he was reinstated after a month.
All this has been done for his refusal to comply dictates of a principal secretary ranked official to grant RBA certificate to an undeserving person within his jurisdiction.
While officials have tried their best to put “him trouble”, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court come to his rescue, ordering that “his present status shall not be disturbed.”
Malik was placed under suspension with immediate effect by an order (No. 764 DIVCOM 2018) by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir on 7 February on the ground that he was “supposed to unfurl the National flag on the 26 January 2018 at Tehsil Headquarters Verinag ( Shahabad Bala) which he failed to do.” However, by another order (No. 806 DIVCOM 2018) on February 28, he was reinstated.
Then CID wing of J&K police filed a false report (vide CID/SS/D-1/2018/PG/1787-88) on July 10, 2018, following which FIR was lodged against him for “barging in this office”.
The SDM Dooru rebutted the report CID report in clear terms by responding to letter by divisional commissioner Kashmir.
“The CID, J&K, Srinagar vide U.O. No. CID/SS/D-1/2018/PG/1787-88 dated 10-07-2018 has reported that on July 7, 2018 Muzaffar Ahmad Malik (suspended Tehsildar) is reported to have visited Tehsil Office Duroo and illegally barged into the office of Tehsildar by breaking open the lock placed by SDM Duroo.
“The report furnished by CID, J&K Srinagar, vide No: CID/SS/D-1/2018/PG/1787-88 Dated: 10-07-2018 is not based on facts and is false, fabricated and baseless. The said Tehsildar (Muzaffar Ahmad Malik ) approached undersigned on 03.07.2018 with the directions from the High court (in the case titled Muzaffar Ahmad Malik v/s State)that “present status of the petitioner (Malik) shall not be disturbed”.
But he was asked by undersigned to produce convey orders from the High court in this behalf. Then on 07-07-2018 he produced convey orders from the High Court. Later on, 07-07-2018 the lock of the office was opened by undersigned and Tehsildar concerned was allowed to continue with the official work to avoid contempt of Court,” the SDM said in response to the order by the divisional commissioner Kashmir.
As per petition filed by him in the high court, Malik has been falsely implicated, harassed and pressurized for not granting RBA certificate to two brothers sons of Ghulam Nabi Khanday, senior principal secretary with Divisional Commissioner Kashmir. The Tehsildar rejected the RBA certificates of both the brothers as the duo can not avail benefit under SRO-294, dated 21-10-2005 & SRO -144 dated 28-05-2008 following a report by Patwari and others. Their father has an income of more than 12.50 lakhs per year when the income should not exceed 4.50 lakhs per annum for grant of the certificate while brothers also failed to produce local schooling certificate and they reside in Srinagar.
The Tehsildar in his plea says that he has been made a scapegoat for working honestly, dedicatedly and without fear and favour.
A bench of the J&K high court, Justice M K Hanjura, while referring to a circular by divisional commissioner Kashmir observed that “the circular did not fasten any liability on the petitioner (Malik) in his capacity as Tehsildar and to cap it all, the power to place a Tehsildar under suspension appears to be vested with the Government and not the Divisional Commissioner”. “Therefore, it is directed that subject to the objections and till next date of hearing before the Bench, the present status of the petitioner (Malik) shall not be disturbed,” the court said in the order on July 3 and ordered listing of the case again on August 1. (GNS)