news details |
|
|
| DB upholds judgment quashing premature retirement of JKAS officer | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 19: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the order of the writ court to quash premature retirement of a JKAS officer. A division bench upheld the judgment quashing the compulsory retirement of KAS Officer Bhumesh Sharma then Program Officer ICDS Project Samba.
The DB while dismissing the appeal filed by State of J&K (now UT), observed that the term or phrase “compulsory retirement” in service law has been generally used in relation to cases where an employee has been directed that his services are no longer required before he reaches the normal age of retirement prescribed by the rules.
In other words, in substance, there is a premature end of the relationship of master and servant before the servant reaches the prescribed age of retirement or superannuation. Premature retirement is, therefore, a more apt expression to convey the concept with which the petitioner has been subjected.
The purpose and object of premature retirement of a Government employee is to weed out the inefficient, the corrupt, the dishonest or the dead-wood from Government service.
The DB further observed that a perusal of the file as well as the record clearly reveals that compulsory retiring the writ petitioner from service was based on no material, in as much as the writ respondent even did not conduct any departmental inquiry with respect to the act of alleged misconduct on the part of writ petitioner. Further, the writ respondent did not deny in the writ petition the claim of writ petitioner that his APRs from the years 2001-2002 till 2013-2014 have either been good or outstanding, more so the Single Judge had specifically opined that a perusal of the APRs of writ petitioner clearly reveals that no departmental inquiry was pending against him; meaning thereby the writ petitioner had a satisfactory employment record. Further, the State has failed to explain why the Vigilance Department gave clearance to the writ petitioner and why he was selected to the Kashmir Administrative Service in the year 2010 when he has done the act of alleged misconduct and his performance as an officer was not up to the mark. It seems the APRs of writ petitioner, which were reproduced by him, have not been taken into account by the respondents. Even the writ petitioner has specifically claimed in the writ petition that the Transport Commissioner vide communication dated 11.07.2011 had recommended his name for gold medal for his honesty, integrity and meritorious service. In such a situation, the reputation of writ petitioner cannot be termed as doubtful, as projected, nor could his conduct be determined only on spoken words in the absence of any material on record, which was the fundamental flaw in the order issued against the petitioner compulsory retiring him from service. Since the State has failed to disclose the material forming the basis for compulsory retiring the writ petitioner from service, as such it can be said to be a case of no material or no evidence and the same can certainly be held to be arbitrary or without application of mind.
The DB further observed that the power to retire compulsory a government servant in terms of service rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest. Although the scope of judicial review is limited, it has repeatedly been held by the Apex Court that when an order of premature retirement is challenged, the authorities concerned must disclose the materials on the basis of which the order was made. Further, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be based on the sole basis of recommendations of the committee which has to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. Merely because the committee has made recommendations for retirement of writ petitioner, he cannot be compulsorily retired unless the competent authority comes to a conclusion after forming a bona fide opinion of its own that the writ petitioner can be subjected to compulsory retirement in the interest of the institution.
The DB observed that as regards FIR No.20/2005 dated 16.12.205 registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance Organization, which later on transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the file reveals that the CBI after conducting investigation submitted the closure report before the Special Judge AntiCorruption, which came to be accepted by the trial Court vide order dated 22.03.2007. In FIR No.13/2012 the writ petitioner had not been named as an accused. In our view compulsory retirement cannot be sustained merely because an FIR was lodged against the writ petitioner by the Vigilance Organization. The practice followed by the State in directing compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner was completely unwarranted because that would violate the basic maxim of „innocent until proved guilty‟. Thus, via the impugned order of compulsory retirement, the State has applied this principle in the reverse.
The DB inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with connected CM/IAs upholding the judgment and order of Single Judge.
The DB further said that however, as regards the allegations leveled by the writ respondent against the writ petitioner, the State and its officers at the helm of affairs if are fair enough and have a will, and do not intend to provide a safe passage either to writ petitioner or the then officials/officers of Vigilance Organization, are free to go ahead with such inquiry, if they deem fit, and complete the same in a time bound manner without any excuse on the part of officers holding such inquiry. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
