DB upholds quashment of premature retirement of TSO, Store-keeper

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by General Administration Department, upheld the judgment of writ court whereby writ court quashed the premature retirement of Chamel Singh TSO and Romesh Singh Store-Keeper.
DB comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri after hearing AAG Raman Sharma for the GAD whereas Advocates Achal Sharma for the TSO and Store-keeper, observed that admittedly, a perusal of the file clearly reveals that the State Government has run roughshod over the petitioner by compulsory retiring the petitioner from service as the decision seems to be based on no material, in as much as the relevant material including the APRs and other service record which was required to be considered by the Committee for considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement has either not been placed before the Committee or has not been considered while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is generally known to have bad reputation and his continuance may not be in the larger interest of the public.
It is pertinent to mention here that the important aspect of considering the APRs has been given a complete goby by the Committee while considering the writ petitioner’s compulsory retirement.
The Committee, in general, ought to have considered the entire service record of the public servant available in the shape of APRs, service book, personal file giving the details of the complaints received against him from time to time and so on and so forth. While retiring the public servant compulsory, his case has to be considered on the basis of documents/ service particulars, as stated above. It is conspicuous by its absence in the present case. If these are disregarded and omitted in the matter of the accord of consideration to the case of the compulsory retirement of a public servant, the whole exercise will get vitiated under the colour of non application of mind and decision having been taken not on just grounds. It appears the APRs of petitioner, have not been taken into account by the respondents. This itself speaks about the non application of mind by the Establishment Committee which apparently arrived at the conclusion without looking into the relevant record.
It is specially observed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment that the writ respondent had not denied the APRs of the petitioner which were annexed with the writ petition by way of filing any reply affidavit, however, the respondents have emphasized on the statement in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee that ‘due to his persistent misconduct, the employee does not enjoy a good reputation in the public and the overall perception of the general public is that he is a corrupt and delinquent official. We are of the view that in absence of any adverse entry in the APRs of the writ petitioner, 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.
It is abundantly clear that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken only in view of the registration of FIRs registered by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu and Crime Branch, Jammu and apart from the aforesaid two FIRs no other record was either placed before the Committee or the Competent Authority.
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 bonafide 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 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 petitioner can be subjected to compulsory retirement in the interest of the institution.