JAMMU: Justice B S Walia of J&K High Court Jammu Wing quashed the order regarding premature retirement of Chief Enforcement Officer of Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) Satish Khajuria. In the petition filed by Satish Khajuria seeking quashment of order dated June 30, 2015 whereby in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), the petitioner was retired from government service with effect from forenoon of July 1, 2015 by allowing him three pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice on his having rendered 22 years of service and seeking reinstatement in service with effect from the date he had been illegally retired from government service and to grant him all consequential benefits including salary, allowances, seniority etc. Justice Walia after hearing Senior Adv Sunil Sethi for the petitioner whereas Sr. AAG S.S Nanda appearing for the state, observed that the recommendations have been formulated by the Committee constituted by the Govt only on account of involvement of the petitioner in a case. Involvement of the petitioner in a case did not mean that he was guilty. The respondents ought to have borne in mind that the petitioner 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. Justice Walia further observed 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. It is true that there were some severe allegations leveled against the petitioner, but on mere allegations such a grave action was unwarranted. The Govt 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 B S Walia further 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 prematurely retiring the petitioner. Recommendations by the committee do not disclose taking of APRs / 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 APRs having been available with the committee and same not having been taken into account, the said objections is not maintainable. 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. The 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, 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 vs State of J&K & ors.
Accordingly, payment of salary from the date of order of premature retirement till
reinstatement is restricted to 30%.