news details |
|
|
| HC quashes JMC CEO's premature retirement order | | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, July 21: High court judge B S Walia today quashed the state government's premature retirement order of JMC's chief Enforcement Officer (CEO) Satish Khajuria.
The court directive came in a petition filed by Khajuria, seeking quashment of the June 30, 2015 government order whereby in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226 (2) of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), he was retired from government service with effect from forenoon of July 1, 2015 by allowing him 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of 3 months notice on his having rendered 22 years of service. He had also sought reinstatement of service with effect from the date he had been illegally retired from government service and to grant him all consequential benefits including salary, allowances and seniority.
Justice Walia, after hearing the two sides, observed that the recommendations had been formulated by the government committee only on account of the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case. This did not mean that he was guilty. The respondents ought to have borne in mind that he was still to be tried in a court of law and the truth was to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution was ultimately conducted. But before that stage was reached, it was highly improper to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement in the case, he said.
"It is true that some severe allegations were levelled against the petitioner, but on mere allegations such a grave action was unwarranted. The government could have awaited the decision in the case. There was no reason to show such a promptitude in exercise of power under Article 226(2) of the CSRs. Awaiting the result of the trial was more necessitated because there was no other material which would warrant compulsory retirement of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that the respondents have not exercised their power in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service," Justice Walia said.
Justice Walia observed that apart from the gist of allegations against the petitioner of his involvement in the FIRs, besides his facing probe in nine verifications, there was no other material available with the committee nor was taken into account before giving its recommendations for retiring him prematurely.
"The committee recommendations do not disclose taking of APRs and service record into account. The same is in violation of settled law. The plea that the APRs were recorded in violation of the order applicable in respect thereto would have carried weight in case the said APRs had been considered and dealt with on aforesaid point. In the absence of availability of APRs with the committee and same not having been taken into account, the said objections are not maintainable," he said.
In view of the decision of Apex Court in State of Gujarat v/s Suryakant Chunilal Shah, mere registration of FIR could not furnish the basis to the competent authority to retire a public servant in public interest purportedly on account of FIR having been registered against him. In the circumstances, in the light of the position as noted in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order was unsustainable, Justice Walia said. "It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has not reached the age of superannuation and is to retire on July 31, 2016. In the circumstances, while allowing this petition, impugned order is quashed, petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. However, in view of respondent No 1 not having been impleaded as party by name despite allegations of malafide exercise of power by him, it would not be appropriate to follow the normal rule of grant of full salary on reinstatement in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Gupta v/s State of J&K & others. Accordingly, payment of salary from the date of order of premature retirement till reinstatement is restricted to 30 pc. The petitioner shall also not be entitled to any interest on monetary benefits," Justice Walia ordered. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
