Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 9: In a significant service-law ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the UT Government’s intra-court appeal and upheld the quashing of a premature retirement order, holding that compulsory retirement cannot be sustained when the “entire service record” is not evaluated and the decision effectively rests on an FIR alone.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, while deciding LPASW No. 171/2018 along with CCP(S) No. 505/2024 (reserved on 10.12.2025 and pronounced on 30.12.2025), affirmed the writ court judgment dated 05.09.2018 in SWP No. 210/2017, which had directed reinstatement of the employee with consequential benefits.
The respondent, Ahsan-ul-Haq Khan, was initially appointed as Sectional Officer (now Junior Engineer) in 1982 and was, as per record, lastly working as AE (Incharge) in Sub Division Zainpora, REW, Shopian.
He was implicated in FIR No. 24/2011 under Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 161 and 109 RPC and was placed under suspension on 07.12.2011.
The judgment notes the respondent’s stand disputing the allegations and the circumstances of the alleged recovery.
He was later reinstated by Government Order dated 21.07.2015 and had subsequent postings, including R&B Sub Division Handwara and deputation to REW Kashmir.
However, vide Government Order dated 21.11.2016, he was served a notice of premature retirement with effect from the forenoon of 01.07.2015, and the impugned order was served along with a cheque of Rs 2,01,192.
He challenged the move before the writ court, contending that it was unsupported by record and that his service profile was not properly evaluated.
The Government defended the decision by pointing to sanction for prosecution in the vigilance case.
The High Court, however, reiterated that the law on premature retirement is settled and that the opinion of “public interest” must be formed on the basis of the entire service record, in line with executive instructions including SRO 246 dated 30.06.1999 and OM dated 25.10.2010.
It also underlined that compulsory retirement cannot be used as a shortcut in place of a regular inquiry, and that mere involvement in a criminal case does not establish guilt.
Examining the record, the Division Bench recorded a crucial finding that no material other than involvement in FIR No. 24/2011 was taken into consideration, and that apart from the FIR there was no other material worth the name forming the basis of the action.
The Court noted that although minutes reflected that APRs were not available, the authorities did not even undertake an exercise to examine the service book to assess the respondent’s conduct across a long career.
On the Screening Committee’s remark about poor public reputation and perceptions of corruption, the Court held that such observations must be supported by cogent material emanating from the service record, and rejected a sweeping statement unsupported by record.
The Bench further held that the competent authority’s satisfaction appeared to be driven only by the FIR and that the recommendation was “seemingly” accepted without independent application of mind, thereby vitiating the decision-making process.
Consequently, finding no illegality in the writ court’s judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and held the premature retirement order to be unsustainable in law.
In the connected contempt proceedings, the Court observed that since the appeal—earlier dismissed for non-prosecution—was restored and remained pending during a period, non-compliance in that interregnum could not, at that stage, be treated as wilful disobedience.
However, the High Court directed the respondents to comply with the writ court judgment within eight weeks from 30.12.2025, and clarified that failure would entitle the petitioner to seek revival of contempt proceedings in accordance with law. (JNF) |
