news details |
|
|
| Compulsory retirement can't be quashed merely on another possible view: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 30: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an order of compulsory or premature retirement cannot be interfered with merely because another view may also be possible on the same material, while restoring a 2016 Government order compulsorily retiring a Government employee.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeev Kumar allowed the State's appeal and set aside the October 5, 2018 judgment of a Single Judge which had quashed the compulsory retirement of Ghulam Mohammad Lone and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
The case arose from Government Order No. 1264-GAD of 2016 dated November 21, 2016, issued under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, whereby Lone had been prematurely retired from Government service.
The State challenged the Single Judge ruling, contending that compulsory retirement is an administrative measure intended to maintain efficiency and integrity in public administration and that courts exercising judicial review cannot sit as appellate authorities over the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.
The Government had relied upon Lone's service record, his alleged involvement in a vigilance case relating to demand and acceptance of a bribe of Rs 9,000, his general reputation and other service-related material while recommending his premature retirement.
The respondent, however, maintained that his service record had remained satisfactory and argued that mere registration of an FIR or an unproved allegation could not form the basis for prematurely ending his Government service.
The Division Bench observed that premature or compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic and is distinct from dismissal or removal from service. The Court said the power is exercised in public interest to maintain efficiency and integrity in Government service.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The competent authority must base its opinion on relevant and cogent material after considering the employee's entire service record, with due emphasis on later years of service.
The Court further held that judicial interference is justified only where the decision is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, perversity, absence of material, consideration of irrelevant material or failure to consider relevant material.
The Bench noted that Lone had rendered about 38 years of service and had attained the age of 58 years when he was compulsorily retired. His Annual Performance Reports for several years largely rated his performance as satisfactory, while some parameters for 2014-15 ranged from satisfactory to excellent.
Holding that the competent authority had considered the relevant service record and other material before forming its opinion in public interest, the Division Bench observed that the retirement order could not be set aside merely because a different view of the same material was possible.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Single Judge judgment and upheld Government Order No. 1264-GAD of 2016, thereby restoring Lone's compulsory retirement. The State's appeal was allowed. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
