Illegal Appointments in J&K Bank: Anti-Corruption Court frames charges against 2 Ex-Chairman of J&K Bank
An anti-corruption court has framed charges against two former Chairmen of J&K Bank Ltd and others in connection with alleged illegal appointments of Bank Attendants and Assistant Bank Associates.
Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Tasleem Arief said that there is enough initial evidence to continue the case against the accused. The offences are under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The case is based on FIR No. 10/2019 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The FIR was filed after a complaint alleged “backdoor” appointments in different branches of the bank.
Also Read: Punjab & Sind Bank Manager arrested in Varanasi
According to the prosecution, former Chairmen Mushtaq Ahmed Sheikh and Parvez Ahmed Nengroo, along with senior officials, planned together to appoint certain people without identifying proper vacancies, issuing public advertisements, or following the rules under the Officers Service Manual, 2000.
The charge sheet also names several other accused officials and beneficiaries. These include 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 these appointments were first made for 89 days on a temporary basis. Later, they were made permanent even though there were no approved vacancies. The ACB further alleged that both Chairmen followed a similar method to appoint their favourites, including relatives. They allegedly worked with other officials to create an illegal practice of secretly appointing undeserving candidates.
Also Read: Tax on Disability Pension of Soldiers Explained! Understand the controversy
The investigating agency said that because of these actions, more qualified candidates lost job opportunities. It also claimed that the bank suffered financial loss. The appointed persons received salaries of more than ₹41 lakh till August 2019, which gave them unfair financial benefit.
The defence lawyers asked the court to discharge the accused. They argued that the FIR was based on a false name complaint, which was later denied by the person said to be the complainant. They also argued that J&K Bank is a private entity and its officers are not “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The defence further said that the temporary appointments were made under Rule 310 of the Officers Service Manual due to administrative needs. They added that the Board of Directors later approved these appointments through resolutions.
However, the court said that at the stage of framing charges, it only needs to see whether there is enough material to presume that offences may have been committed. It is not required to examine the evidence in detail at this stage.
Also Read: 5 Day Banking: Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh will observe 25 February as Protest Day
Referring to principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the court noted that conspiracy is usually proved through surrounding circumstances. The material on record showed a common plan and coordinated action, which is enough at this stage to continue the case.
The court also upheld the prosecution sanction given by the Chairman/CEO of J&K Bank under Section 6 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The court said that he was the competent authority to remove the serving officials and had the power to approve their prosecution.
The court concluded that the prosecution had presented enough initial material showing criminal misconduct and conspiracy. Therefore, it refused to discharge any of the accused.
Also Read: Prosecution Proposal filed Against ICICI Bank MD & CEO
The court observed that after examining the records and preliminary evidence, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
The matter has now been listed for formal framing of charges on March 10, 2026.
