Srinagar, Dec31: Hon’ble Mr Justice M. K. Hanjura, Judge in SWP no.1535/2015 titled Hammid Ahmad Wani vs. State of J&K and others after hearig both sides quashed compulsory retirement order of appellant passed by Govt. The order reads as:-
1. The entire range of the controversy raised here in this petition revolves round the plea whether the Order bearing no.882-GAD of 2015 dated 30th of June, 2015, issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, whereby notice was given to the
petitioner, namely, Mr Hammid Wani, Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu,
2. The crux of the petition of the petitioner is that during the entire tenure of his service, he worked with great deal of honesty and dedication at different places of posting and, at the relevant point of time, i.e. the day when the order aforesaid was issued, he was holding the post of the Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu, in the Town Planning Organization,
Kashmir. The petitioner has further contended that vide Government Order no.65-UD of 1993 dated 12th March 1993, he was appointed as an Assistant Town Planner in the Town Planning Organisation, Kashmir and on the basis of his merit and suitability, he was promoted albeit on officiating basis as Town Planner, vide Government Order no.193-HUD of 2001 dated 17th August 2001. Vide Government order no.231-HUD of 2006 dated 6th September 2006, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Town Planner and thereafter vide Government Order no.177-HUD of 2014 dated 23rd May 2014, he was promoted on officiating basis as Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority.
3. The Respondents have strenuously resisted and controverted the petition of the petitioner, on the grounds, inter alia, that the Government has to perform a multitude of tasks in order to implement various welfare measures of public interest, and the paramount aim is of providing clean and effective administration to the people of the State. In order to make the administration effective, a periodic review of all Officers is taken up by the Government, the aim and object being to encourage honest and efficient Government servants and, simultaneously, to weed out the inefficient and corrupt officers from the services in the public interest. While as, various incentives and awards are given to honest and efficient officers/officials, recourse is taken to the provisions of Article 226 (2) and (3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956, for the removal of such Government officials from the State services, who have become deadwood on account of their indulging in inefficient and corrupt practices. The order of compulsory retirement passed in the case of the petitioner is based on the object of weeding out the deadwood from the State services. Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services
Regulations is designed to infuse the administration with an initiative for better administration and for augmenting the general efficiency so as to meet the expanding horizons and cater to the new challenges faced by the State to provide sensitivity, probity, non-irritative public relation and enthusiastic creativity, which can be achieved by eliminating the
deadwood. In order to consider the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement, under and in terms of the Government order bearing No.17-GAD (Vig.) 2015 dated 20th
May 2015, sanction was accorded to the constitution of a Committee to consider the cases of the Officers/officials for premature retirement. The Committee met on 26th
June 2015 and amongst others, considered the case of the petitioner. The Committee observed that the petitioner by abusing his official position in Town Planning Organisation, Kashmir, has conferred undue benefit upon the beneficiaries by making mischievous reports regarding change of land use falling under Planning Sub-Zone A-14 of Master Plan, Pahalgam and accordingly, the FIR no.27/2008 under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006, and Section
120-B, 109 RPC at Police Station Vigilance Organisation Jammu, was registered against the petitioner. The competent authority after considering the records and the evidence collected by the investigating agency and applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, accorded sanction to the prosecution of the petitioner vide Government Order no.35-GAD (Vig) of 2011 dated 10th June 2011. The charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been laid before the court of law. TheCommittee observed that the Annual Confidence Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner are not available. The Committee took note of the fact that the petitioner indulged in corrupt practices and has made several wrong reports related to the Master Plan of Pahalgam for his pecuniary benefits, thereby substantiating the fact that he has outlived his utility to the public.
Having regard to the material placed before the Committee, the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner is generally known to have bad reputation and indulging in corrupt practices. The Committee, therefore, recommended for retirement of the petitioner under Article 226(2) of J&K CSR. The recommendations so made were accepted by the Competent Authority, as a consequence of which, the impugned order was issued. It has been, accordingly, pleaded by the Respondent-State that the impugned order is legal. It is in accordance with law.
23. Viewed in the context of what has been said and done above, the impugned order bearing no.882-GAD of 2015 dated 30th of June, 2015, cannot stand the test of law and reason. It is not based on any material from which a reasonable opinion could be derived to put forth the plea that the petitioner has outlived his utility as a Government servant or that his conduct was such that his continuance in service would be prejudicial to the public interest. Merely that a case or cases have been registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance Organization cannot form the basis of retiring him compulsorily, as a corollary to which, the impugned order bearing no.882-GAD of 2015 dated 30th of June, 2015, is quashed. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and to grant him all consequential benefits, within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is served on them by the petitioner.
|