JAMMU, Aug 1w: Article 226(2) & (3) of J&K Civil Service Regulations speaks regarding compulsory retirement of Government officers as dead wood. Vide Government order No. 306 GAD of 2003 dated 5/3/2003, a committee was constituted to consider the cases under Article 226 (22 & (3), who is to be compulsorily retired as dead wood. In the said Government order it was also mentioned that “The committee shall coopt the concerned Administrative Secretary of the department the cases of which department is/are under consideration by the committee as member”.
It is pertinent to mention here that following the said Government order a communication was further issued by the GAD vide No GAD(Adm) 71/2003-V dated 1/04/2003. In the said communication a proforma was devised in which the information was to be provided by the concerned Administrative Secretary for the cases which were to be considered for pre mature retirement under Art. 226. In the said Performa it has been observed by CTN that these following things were needed to be kept in view for consideration of cases for compulsory retirement :
1. Public servants who have become in-efficient, in-effective or have out lived their utility in administration should be referred for consideration.
2. General assessment about their reputation should be mentioned in addition to their grading in APR’s.
3. Premature retirement option should not be as a short cut remedial measures for cases of dereliction of duties, which needed to be enquired through formal statutory procedure.
In the said Performa S.No. 1 to 9 & 12 are covered in one’s APR’s & if some ones APR’s are O.K. how the concerned can be made as a dead wood without application of mind. CTN has an example of one officer, who was compulsorily retired by the Govt. whose last APR was initiated by an IAS officer, District Development Commissioner with his comments as “Under the supervision of the officer quality of works has been improved in the District. A dynamic & efficient officer. An asset to the department” His HOD as reviewing officer also commented as “I agree with the initiating officer” but the said officer after 14 days compulsorily retired under Article 226 on the report of CID.
It is worthwhile to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same case of compulsorily retirement says as “An ex parie enquire has been carried out by CID, the screening committee recommended the compulsory retirement & the petitioner was compulsorily retired” Thereafter it was orderedby the Apex Court that “ The order of compulsory retirement suffers from vice of inflicting punishment on the petitioner & violative of Art. 311 of the constitution of India. If the allegations against the petitioner were found to be substantiated by CID. It was the duty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner for providing a proper opportunity to him rather than to have adopted this short cut of removing him from service. Order quashed” The said order was passed in Surinder Shankar Awasthi v/s State of UP in 1982 Lab Ic 548 (All). However after a legal battle of more than seven years the officer was reinstated by the Apex Court by quashing the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Govt. But what about the incompetent officers, who approved the order of compulsory retirement on the report of CID & in which later CID communicated that CID being only intelligence agency, it donot gather documentary evidence. Such officers should have been punished by the Govt. to show transparency& justice for which they talks of.
Supreme court in State of Gujrat v/s Umeedbhai M Patel in the similar case of Compulsory retirement, which was quashed by the Hon’ble Apex court frames the guidelines for compulsory retirement is as under:-
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such courses is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measures.
It is also to mention here that in recent compulsory retirement in the case of one J.S.Tondon, Ex M.D. State Road Transport Corporation, HHC, Jammu issued notice to Chief Secretary & others with the directions to file response before August,17. Mr. Tondon, who appeared in person submitted that before he took over as MD in 2010, the income of the corporation was 36.32 crore of rupee & due to his hard work it rose to 100 crore in 2013 & 2014. He also submitted that his APR’s for the year were marked as Very Good by his seniors & nothing adverse against him but he has been compulsorily retired in violation of Art. 226(2) of J&K CSR& Art. 311 COI, but who bothers?
It is also pertinent to mention here that, it has been noticed that in other cases filed by others, orders were passed by the HHC to produce the records of the screening committee in the next date, but the officers did not bothered for, such officers are needed to be compulsorily retired as dead wood for their efficiency & malafide act for not producing the documents required by the HHC for early disposal of the cases.
|