SRINAGAR: The Court of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, has ordered framing of charges against two former Chairmen and several officials of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. in connection with alleged illegal appointments of Bank Attendants and Assistant Bank Associates.
Special Judge Anti-Corruption Tasleem Arief held that sufficient prima facie material exists to proceed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the JK Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The case arises out of FIR No. 10/2019 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau based on a complaint alleging “backdoor” appointments in different branches of the bank.
According to the prosecution, former Chairmen Mushtaq Ahmed Sheikh and Parvez Ahmed Nengroo, along with senior officials, conspired to appoint certain beneficiaries without identifying vacancies, issuing advertisements or following prescribed norms under the Officers Service Manual, 2000.
The charge sheet names several other accused officials and beneficiaries, including Abdul Rouf Bhat, Mohd Maqbool Lone, Mohd Yahya Rafiqui, Syed Irfan Lateef, Mohd Iqbal Wani, Arshid Hussain Dar, Shakoor Ahmed Bhat, Waseem Mehraj, Vagish Chander Sharma, Mohd Ayoub Wanchoo, Fayaz Ahmed Bhat, Asif Iqbal Raja, Showkat Ahmed Bhat, Parvaiz Ahmed Baba, Anjum Ara, Faizan Ayaz, Mushtaq Ahmed Mir, Abdul Rashid Shigan, Mohd Aslam Ganie, Imran Matoo and Hameem Nusrat.
The ACB alleged that the appointments were initially made temporarily for 89 days and later regularised despite the absence of sanctioned vacancies. It further alleged that the two Chairmen adopted an identical modus operandi in accommodating their respective favourites, including relatives, and acted in conspiracy with other officials to create what it described as an unprecedented and illegal practice of clandestinely absorbing undeserving candidates.
According to the investigating agency, the alleged actions deprived more competent aspirants of employment opportunities and resulted in financial loss to the bank, with appointees drawing salaries amounting to over Rs 41 lakh till August 2019, thereby conferring undue pecuniary advantage.
The defence counsel sought discharge of the accused, arguing that the FIR was based on a pseudonymous complaint later disowned by the alleged complainant. It was also contended that the JK Bank is a private entity and its officers do not fall within the definition of “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The defence further submitted that temporary appointments were made under Rule 310 of the Officers Service Manual due to administrative exigencies and were subsequently ratified by the Board of Directors through resolutions.
The court, however, observed that at the stage of framing of charges, it is only required to assess whether sufficient material exists to presume the commission of offences and not to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence.
Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the court noted that conspiracy is often proved through circumstantial evidence and that the material on record indicated “a thread of concerted common course of action and commonality of design” sufficient at this stage to proceed.
The court also upheld the validity of the prosecution sanction granted by the Chairman/CEO of JK Bank under Section 6 of the JK Prevention of Corruption Act, observing that he was the competent authority to remove the in-service officials and was duly empowered to sanction their prosecution.
Holding that the prosecution had placed sufficient preliminary material on record indicating criminal misconduct and conspiracy, the court declined to discharge any of the accused.
“Consistent with the settled legal position and the foregoing discussion, this Court finds from a perusal of the material on record and the preliminary evidence that the prosecution has produced sufficient material furnishing grounds to proceed against the accused,” the court observed.
The matter has been listed for formal framing of charges on March 10, 2026.
