**
Tuesday, October 20, 2026
spot_img

Jammu Kashmir Govt Withholds Two Increments of Patwari in Rs 5,000 Bribery Case

   

SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir Government has withheld two increments with cumulative effect of a Patwari in Anantnag district who was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in August 2024 for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 5,000 for issuing a certified copy of an online land mutation.

Follow Us OnG-News | Whatsapp

The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu and Kashmir, has also barred Mohd Ayoub Hajam, the then Patwari of Patwar Halqa Sadoora with additional charge of Fatehpora in Anantnag tehsil, from being assigned any sensitive posting for three years.

According to Government Order No. 124-FC(Rev) of 2026, dated October 19, the official’s suspension will continue until the Suspension Review Committee in the General Administration Department (GAD) takes a decision on the matter.

The order states that the penalty was imposed under Rule 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, after the competent authority examined the departmental inquiry report and other relevant records.

The penalty will be reviewed for enhancement or reduction after the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the order said.

Arrest followed alleged demand for Rs 5,000

According to the order, Hajam was arrested by the ACB’s Anantnag unit on August 1, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 04/2024 registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case concerned an alleged demand and acceptance of Rs 5,000 in exchange for issuing a certified copy of an online mutation relating to land purchased by the complainant’s wife in February 2024.

Following his arrest, the then Patwari was placed under suspension by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, through an order dated August 3, 2024. He was subsequently attached to the office of the Tehsildar, Srigufwara, on December 4, 2024.

Departmental inquiry conducted

The Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, appointed the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ACR), Anantnag, as the Inquiry Officer and the Tehsildar, Anantnag, as the Presenting Officer on December 13, 2024, to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter.

A memorandum containing the articles of charge and statement of imputations was served on Hajam on December 31, 2024. He submitted his reply on January 3, 2025, denying the allegations.

The initial inquiry report, submitted on January 7, 2025, highlighted delays in providing services under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Services Guarantee Act (PSGA), 2011, in Fatehpora and recommended appropriate disciplinary action under the applicable service rules.

Based on the inquiry findings, records and the nature of the alleged misconduct, the Deputy Commissioner recommended a penalty involving reduction to a lower post, lower time-scale or a lower stage in the time-scale.

However, during examination of the case, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) observed that the charged official had sought an in-person hearing, which had apparently not been granted, and directed the Inquiry Officer to provide the hearing and submit an updated report.

Suspension to continue pending GAD review

In compliance with the direction, the Inquiry Officer conducted an in-person hearing through video conferencing and submitted an updated report on September 22, 2026.

The report reiterated the recommendation for appropriate disciplinary action, stating that the central aspect of the case concerning the Patwari’s arrest in a trap case remained intact.

After considering the updated report and other relevant material, the competent authority found Hajam guilty of the misconduct charged and ordered the withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.

The order further directs that he must not be assigned any sensitive assignment for three years. His suspension will remain in force until the Suspension Review Committee in the GAD decides the matter.

The disciplinary penalty is separate from the criminal proceedings arising from the ACB case, whose outcome will be taken into account when reviewing the penalty, according to the order.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here