Basudev Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Another

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks quashing of Government Order No.889-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 with a direction to the respondents to

re-instate the petitioner to his original post of Helper (Meter Reader).Â

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager in the year 1986

and his services were regularized in the year 1994 and since then is working as helper (meter reader) in the Power Development Department. It is

submitted that one Chet Ram son of Mohar Singh resident of Kashmiri Colony, Bari Brahmana, Jammu out of malice had filed a false complaint

before the Vigilance Organization, Jammu alleging that the petitioner had refused to supply him the electric bill and demanded Rs.2000/- for supplying

the said bill. FIR No.13/2013 came to be registered on 08.08.2013 under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Vigilance Organization, Jammu and the

sleuth of the Vigilance Organization laid a trap and the petitioner was arrested. Consequent upon his arrest, the petitioner was placed under suspension

vide order dated 13.08.2013. It is stated that the respondent instead of considering his case for reinstatement have issued order of petitioner’s

compulsory retirement.

The respondents have not filed any reply. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the order impugned whereby petitioner

was retired prematurely. Learned counsel submits that based on a specific complaint, a trap was laid and the petitioner was found demanding and

accepting a bride of Rs.2,000/- from one Chet Ram in lieu of settling his electricity bill. Accordingly, FIR 13/2013 was registered by the Vigilance

Organization. He further submits that the Committee constituted to consider the cases of government servants for retirement under Article 226(2) of

the J&K CSRs came to the conclusion that since the official is generally known to have bad reputation and was caught red handed while demanding

and accepting the bribe, therefore, his further retention in service was not in public interest. The Committee, thus, recommended his premature

retirement from service.Â

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order impugned whereby the petitioner has been retired compulsorily is outcome of

mala fide and extraneous considerations. He further submits that 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

in service may not be in the larger interest of the public. He, therefore, sought quashing of the order impugned.Â

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents justifies the compulsory retirement of the petitioner by submitting that in

view of the involvement of the petitioner in corruption case registered against him, his integrity has become doubtful and his continuance in service is

highly pre-judicial to public interest and efficiency in administration. Learned counsel further submits that apart from his involvement in criminal case

of corruption, Committee has observed that through his consistent conduct over a period of time, the employee does not enjoy good reputation in the

public and he has, thus, outlived his utility to the public.Â

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The issues which have been raised in the instant writ petition were considered threadbare, discussed and decided by a Division Bench of this Court

in the case of State of J&K and others v. Abdul Majid Wani (LPA No.95/2017) decided on 06.10.2017 and after considering the relevant Rules,

Guidelines, Govt. Instructions and law on the subject held that an employee who is found to have indulged in corrupt practices, has to be dealt with iron

hands. Such a public servant, if found guilty, has to be punished and shown the door and not compulsorily retired, allowing him to get away with all the

retiral benefits. The compulsory retirement provision has been enacted to achieve a different purpose, i.e., to weed out inefficient and corrupt public

servants whose continuance in service is prejudicial to public interest. This, however, has to be adjudged upon on the basis of the work and conduct of

the employee during his whole service career, though attaching more importance to his work and conduct during last some years preceding his

compulsory retirement. This power based on the pleasure doctrine of the sovereign should not be used for collateral purpose.Â

From a perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, which recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner, it is abundantly clear

that decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken only in view of the registration of No.13/2013 registered at Vigilance Oranization, Jammu

and apart from the aforesaid FIR no other record was either placed before the Committee or the Competent Authority.Â

As a matter of fact, APRs/ACRs of the petitioner were not considered by the Committee on the plea that these were not available. This itself

speaks about the non-application of mind by the Establishment Committee which arrived at the conclusion without looking into the relevant record. The

petitioner has placed on record copies of the APRs and the same have not been denied by the respondent in their reply affidavit. There is, however, a

statement in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, upon which much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the respondent. The statement

needs to be noticed and reads thus:- “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 officer.†There was no material available with the Committee or before the competent authority to come to such a conclusion nor

is there any indication in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee as to how the Committee arrived at the aforesaid opinion.Â

That being the position, it is evident that the APRs/ACRs of the petitioner as also his other service record like service book were not placed before

the Establishment Committee which arrived at the conclusion for retiring the petitioner prematurely on the basis of aforesaid one FIR and that the

reputation of the petitioner was not good. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, fully covered by the judgment in the case of Abdul Majid Wani’s

case (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Petitioner is, accordingly, held entitled to reinstatement

forthwith along with all consequential benefits. Â