Jammu, Sept 18: Lot of top officers in J&Kdespite clear cut quashment orders of compulsory retirements passed by various courts, again & again they are passing such illegal orders in violations of guidelines issued into the matter.
Today again Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rahul Bharti today held that the power to retire compulsory a Government servant in terms of service rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.
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.
Accordingly, DB upheld the judgment of Writ Court whereby premature retirements of one Gautam Singh and D K Nargotra was quashed.
It has been passed in LPA of Govt with approval of so called competent officers of Law Dept of J&K, directed against the judgment and order dated 26.12.2017 delivered by the Single Bench in SWP No.723/2005, whereby the Single Judge quashed the impugned order, bearing No.480-GAD of 2005 dated 26.04.2005 compulsory retiring the writ petitioner from service in public interest with effect from 26.04.2005 in exercise of powers under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations.
The court observed that 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.
DB said that while retiring the public servant compulsory, his case has to be considered on the basis of documents/ service particulars but 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.
While dismissing the appeal filed by GAD, DB observed, “we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the Single Judge & accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with connected CM upholding the judgment and order of Single Judge".
DB further However, as regards the allegations leveled by the writ respondent against the writ petitioner, the State and its officers at the helm of affairs if are fair enough and have a will, and do not intend to provide a safe passage to writ petitioner, are free to go ahead with inquiry, if they deem fit, and complete the same in a time bound manner.
|