Noor Ud Din Wani @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors

The entire gamut of the controversy raised here in this petition revolves round the plea whether the Government order bearing No. 1279-GAD of

2016 dated 21st of November, 2016, 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, Shri Noor-ud-Din Wani, I/C SMC (RL), Srinagar,

of the Agricultural Production Department, to the effect that he having already rendered 32 years of service, shall retire from service w.e.f. the

forenoon of the 22nd day of November, 2016, can withstand the test of judicial scrutiny.

The pith and core 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 SMC

(RL), Srinagar, in the Agriculture Production Department. His past Service carrier is unblemished and he has, all along, been given various promotions

on the basis of his suitability, merit and excellent service record. In the year 2009, a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 19/2009 was lodged by the

Vigilance Organization, Kashmir with which the investigations commenced. In the said FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner, as the District Agricultural

Officer, Pulwama, in the year 2002, purchased ‘Hybrid Sudan Grass’ seeds on highly exorbitant rates and supply orders were placed with one

M/S Garnier Seeds Delhi for supply of 30.5 quintals of these seeds. It is also alleged that the petitioner has dishonestly released payment in favour of

M/S Farm seeds. The said FIR is pending investigation before the Vigilance Organization for the last five to six years and the same is also the subject

matter of challenge before this High Court. The Respondent Department, instead of contesting the said proceedings, issued the order impugned in the

writ petition, whereby the retirement of the petitioner was ordered under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations.

The Respondents have 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. Whileas, 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 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 Government order bearing No. 17-GAD (Vig) 2015 dated 20th of May, 2015, sanction

was accorded to the constitution of a Committee to consider the cases of the Officers/ officials for compulsory retirement. The record regarding the

involvement of the petitioner in corrupt practices was placed before the Committee. In addition, the cases, in which FIRs have been lodged and are

under probe, were also placed before the Committee, including FIR No. 19/2009 registered by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir for the commission

of offences punishable under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006 and

Section 409, 468, 471, 120-B of the RPC. The Committee observed that the petitioner is involved in the FIR aforesaid with regard to purchase of

‘Hybrid Sudan Grass Seed’ at highly exorbitant rates. It is stated that the investigation conducted revealed that as part of a criminal conspiracy,

the petitioner released the payment in favour of the supplier at a highly exorbitant rate of Rs. 225/- per kg as against the prevailing highest market rate

of Rs. 45/- per kg and, that too, before the issuance of the supply order, with a view to confer undue benefit on him and the supplier firm, which

carried a corresponding loss of Rs. 5,25,875/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five) to the State exchequer.

The investigation also revealed that the petitioner, as District Agriculture Officer Pulwama, with ulterior motives, did not even get the seed

germination/ purity tests conducted before making payments. The Committee having regard to the complaints/ FIRs filed against the petitioner opined

that the petitioner has indulged in corrupt practices and has been involved in several illegal acts during his service tenure, thereby substantiating the

fact he has outlived his utility as a Government servant. The Committee, therefore, recommended for the compulsoryretirement of the petitioner in

public interest under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations. 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. The writ petition, as such, is legally misconceived, without any merit, and, in sequel thereto,

merits dismissal.

In his Rejoinder Affidavit, the petitioner has stated that it is correct to say that a Committee was constituted by the State Government to consider

the cases of various officers/ officials. However, the State has clearly failed to identify as to in which of the categories does the case of the petitioner

fall. Vague allegations which are merely superficial and have no merit in them have been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the

allegations levelled against him in the FIR bearing No. 19/2009 that he has purchased the seeds on exorbitant rates are absolutely incorrect as the

Prosecution is still to prove its case before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The said FIR is under investigation and, under the well settled principles

of law, it could not have been considered for superannuating the petitioner compulsorily. The action of the Respondent-State in retiring the petitioner

after taking resort to the provisions of Article 226(2) of the Civil Services Regulations, is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and, therefore, the

impugned order deserves to be quashed.

Heard and considered.

What requires to be stated, at the outset, is that the Government, in an attempt to cleave to the principles of chopping the deadwood in the shape of

corrupt and inefficient Government servants from service and to maintain the highest standards of efficiency, constituted a Committee headed by the

Chief Secretary of the State vide Government Order bearing No. 17-GAD (Vig) 2015 dated 20th of May, 2015. The Committee, in addition to the

Chief Secretary, comprised of Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Organization and Administrative Secretary of the concerned Department. The

Committee held its deliberations on various occasions and finally on 21st of November, 2016, recommended for compulsory retirement of several

Government officers/ officials, including the petitioner. The official Respondents, in their Reply, have pleaded that the officers/ officials, whose

conduct had come under a cloud, while accord of consideration to their cases by the Committee, the provisions of Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and

Kashmir Civil Services Regulations and OM No. GAD (Vig) 19-Adm/2010 dated 25th of October, 2010, were invoked. The case of the Respondents

further is that the Committee, while considering the case of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not enjoy a good reputation

and, in addition, his involvement had surfaced in FIR No.19/2009 registered against him by the Vigilance Organization with regard to purchase of

Hybrid Sudan Grass Seed at highly exorbitant rates with a view to confer undue benefit on him and the supplier, resulting in huge loss to the State

exchequer. It is the specific case of the Respondent-State that the “Annual Performance Reports†of the petitioner were not considered by the

Committee in the matter of passing the order impugned. While recording the order of his compulsory retirement, the baseline of the order impugned is

the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the FIR detailed hereinbefore, buttressed with his general reputation which, it is stated, was unbecoming of

a Government servant.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir has enacted a specific provision for dealing with the compulsory retirement of the public servants in the Civil

Services Regulations of the State, with the ultimate aim of weeding out the corrupt and inefficient public servants and, at the same time, to prevent its

use as a weapon of a penalty. It requires the formulation of an opinion to the effect that it is in public interest to do so. The said provision, known as

Article 226 (2) of the Civil Services Regulations, reads as follows:Â

“226 (2): - Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so,

require any Government servant other than the one working on a post which is included in Schedule II of these Rules, to retire at any time after he has

completed 22 years/44 completed six monthly period of qualifying service or on attaining 48 years of age; provided that the appropriate authority shall

give in this behalf a notice (in one of the forms prescribed in annexures A and B hereto as the case may be), to the Government servant at least 3

months before the date on which he is required to retire or 3 months of pay and allowance in lieu of such notice. Such a Government servant shall be

granted pensionary benefits admissible under these rules on the basis of qualifying service put in by him on the date of such retirement.â€​Â

It will not be impertinent to state that in the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement vested in the Government under Article 226 (2) of

CSR based on reason, justice, fairness and a just analysis, the Government has issued instructions in terms of SRO 246 dated 30th June, 1999 and

these have to be read in conjunction with the Regulation 226 (2) of the CSR. These are as under:

“Government Instructions :- Levels at which screening should be conducted for Non-Gazetted Employees.Â

At the Non-Gazetted level, a Screening Committed comprising of the Head of the Department and two other Senior Officers of the Department to

be nominated by the concerned Administrative Department should conduct the review. The Screening Committee should screen the cases of all

concerned persons and forward its recommendations to the Administrative Department for further follow up action in terms of Art. 226 (2) of J&K

CSR. This review should be done regularly, preferably twice every year in the months of January and July each. The review should be conducted by

the cadre controlling Administrative Department which controls the service to which the concerned Government servant belongs irrespective of where

he may be working at the relevant time. However, if the employee is working in a different department then the Screening Committee should consist

of at least one Senior Officer from the department in which the Government servant is/was working at the relevant time.

The review should, normally be initiated around six months before the officer/official attains the prescribed age or completes the prescribed service.

A separate register can be maintained for keeping a watch on the time schedule for such review.

The final decision in the matter for Non Gazetted staff should rest with Administrative Department, which should take a final decision based upon

the report of the Screening Committee. This should be done within a period of three months of receipt of report from the Screening Committee. The

gist of the final decision can be recorded in the service book of the employee.

The decision of the Administrative Department implies a decision by the concerned Minister of the Department on file. Hence, he can review his

own decision in the form of considering representations made by the concerned employees against the initial decision pertaining to premature

retirement in the interest of natural justice.

Norms to be followed by the Screening Committees in cases of Non-Gazetted Employees.Â

The Annual Performance Report of the Non-Gazetted Employees are not normally written very carefully nor are they fully available in a large

number of cases. The Screening Committee should, therefore, consider the entire service record including all material and relevant information

available on record about the employees before coming to any conclusion.

The Government employees whose integrity is doubtful should be retired. For the purpose of establishing that the integrity of the Government

servant is doubtful, the following information/records could be considered:

* Number and nature of complaints received, if any, against the Government servant pertaining to doubtful integrity or corruption.

* Number and nature of various audit paras pending, if any, against the Government servant in which concerned Government servant is found to be

involved.

* Number and nature of vigilance cases pending inquiry, if any, against the Government servant.

* Adverse entries in the APRs concerning doubtful integrity, if any.

* Number and nature of departmental inquiries/preliminary inquiries, if any, which are going on against the concerned Government servant.

* Number and nature of administrative censure/warnings/punishment pertaining to corruption/doubtful integrity against the Government servant, if any.

* General reputation of the employees.â€​

By an addendum to these instructions, the Government in the General Administration Department issued an Office Memo bearing No. OM No.

GAD (Vig)19-Admn/2010 dated 25th October, 2010. The Instructions issued by the Government in terms of SRO 246 dated 30th June, 1999, supra, as

is repeated here, have to be read as a part of Article 226 (2) of CSR, in addition to the aforesaid Memo issued by the GAD. These are meant to be

followed by the Screening Committee both in vigor and rigor while evaluating the cases of the officers forward to them for taking a decision with

regard to their compulsory retirement. The norms laid down above make it succinctly clear that the Screening Committee, while analysing the cases of

the employees for compulsory retirement and while considering that the integrity of a Government servant is doubtful, has to base its view on a variety

of factors. These are the number and nature of complaints received, if any, against the government servant pertaining to his doubtful integrity or

corruption; the number and nature of various audit reports pending, if any, against such government servant; the number and nature of vigilance cases

pending enquiry, if any; adverse entries in APRs concerning doubtful integrity, if any; the number and nature of departmental enquiries, preliminary

enquiries etc; the number and nature of administrative censures /warnings /punishments pertaining to corruption or doubtful integrity and, lastly, the

general reputation of employees. It is only on accord of consideration to the factors aforesaid that the Government can formulate an opinion as to

whether or not, the Government servant whose case is under scrutiny before it,is or is not,a person of doubtful integrity and that his continuance in

service is highly prejudicial to smooth functioning of the administration and the public interest. The decision to compulsory retire a Government servant

has to be, as a matter of necessity, based on the strength of the above guidelines and the principles of law evolved from time to time in a catena of

judicial pronouncements. In this regard, it will be profitable to quote the observations of the Supreme Court made in Paragraph Nos. 8 and 18 of the

case titled “Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board andothersâ€​, reported in “(2009) 13 SCC 758â€​, which read as under:

“8. It is further more well settled that when the State lays down the rule for taking any action against an employee which would cause civil or evil

consequence, it is imperative on its part to scrupulously follow the same. Frankfurter, J. in Vitarelli v. Seaton [359 US 535] stated:Â

“An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged…. Accordingly, if dismissal from

employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be

scrupulously observed……This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the

procedural sword shall perish with that sword.â€​Â

“18. In a case of this nature the appellant has not alleged malice of fact. The requirements to comply with the directions contained in the said

Circular Letter dated 14-8-1981 were necessary to be complied with in a case of this nature. Non-compliance wherewith would amount to malice in

law (See Govt. Branch Press v. D.B Belliappa (1979) 1 SCC 477, S.R Venkataraman v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 491 and P. Mohanan Pillai v.

State of Kerala (2007) 9 SCC 497). Thus, when an order suffers from malice in law, neither any averment as such is required to be made nor strict

proof thereof is insisted upon. Such an order being illegal would be wholly unsustainable.â€​Â

The view, as propounded above, has been repeated and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of “Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative

Dairy Federation Lrd. And another v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamidar, (2009) 15 SCC 221â€​,

Paragraph No. 43, of which assumes significance in the case at hand and it reads as follows:

“43. It is now a well settled principle of law that the employer would be bound by the rule of game. It must follow the standard laid down by itself.

If procedures have been laid down for arriving at some kinds of decisions, the same should substantially be complied with even if the same are

directory in nature. ………â€​Â

It will also be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case titled “M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and others;

(1998) 7SCC 310â€​, Paragraph No. 13 of which is reproduced below, verbatim:-

“13. While reviewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny, i.e., want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add

that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials, no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion.

While evaluating the materials, the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim ‘nemo

firutrepenteturpissimus’ (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct,

particularly in the field of administrative law. The authorities should not keep their eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the

delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of “doubtful integrityâ€​,

it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable

by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance

of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label

“doubtful integrityâ€​.â€​Â

In the case of “State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314â€,the Supreme Court, at Paragraph No.11 of the judgment,

excogitated definite principles of law relating to compulsory retirement and these are as follows:-

“11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus:

(i) Whenever the service of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of

public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.

(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.

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.Â

(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course 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 measure.â€​Â

The law is that the order of compulsory retirement, taken under the safety valve of public interest, could not be treated as a major punishment and

that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution could not be invoked, as the employee concerned was no longer fit in the public interest to continue in service

and, therefore, he can be compulsorily retired. On an analysis of the principles laid down above, the order of compulsory retirement can be subjected

to judicial scrutiny, if the Court is satisfied that the order is passed (a) malafide; or (b) that it is based on no evidence; or (c) that it is arbitrary â€" in

the sense that no reasonable and prudent man would form such an opinion on the given material, in which case it falls under the category of an order

termed to be perverse in the eyes of law.For framing an opinion to compulsorily retire a public servant, there should be some material on record to

support and fortify it, as otherwise, it would amount to arbitrary or colorable exercise of power and, therefore, the order could be challenged on the

grounds that the requisite opinion was based on no evidence or had not been formed or the decision was based on collateral grounds or that is was an

arbitrary decision.

Taking an overall view of the matter, the bottomline of the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is his conduct and the registration of

FIR No.19/2009 against him, in which, it is stated, that the investigation has commenced, but the chargesheet has not been laid before the Court.

Whether the compulsory retirement of the petitioner could have been directed under the facts and circumstances of the case is the moot question that

requires to be determined herein this petition? The answer to this question is provided at Para No. 27 of the law laid down by the Apex Court of the

country in the case of “State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shahâ€, reported in “1998 (9)Supreme 150â€and “(1999) 1 SCC 529â€, which,

for the convenience of ready reference, is reproduced hereinbelow,verbatim et literatim:

“27. The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion

could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a government servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood, he

was compulsorily retiredmerely because of his involvement in two criminal cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus

institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to

be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to

deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal case

would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence

allegedly committed by the employee.â€​

Applying the ratio of law laid down above to the facts of the instant case, resort to the practice which has been followed by the State in directing

the compulsory retirement of the petitioner will have serious ramifications in some cases. It will lead to consequences which can be disastrous for the

smooth functioning of the official machinery. To illustrate this, it needs must be said that most of the employees have to deal with the cases of the

public at large and the employees cannot practically keep every Tom, Dick and Harry in good humor. That being so, if this ‘Sword of

Damocles’ is kept hanging high on the heads of the employees, any Tom, Dick and Harry, can lodge a complaint against the public servant before

the Vigilance Organization which, ultimately, will pave way to show him the exit. Not only this, such a practice cuts at the very root of the basic tenets

and the elements of the age old adage and axiom of law that a person accused of an offence is presumed to be innocent unless and until his guilt has

been proved. The State has applied this principle in the reverse, perhaps, labouring under the belief that the maxim of law is that every person is

presumed to be guilty unless and until he proves his innocence. It is only on the culmination of the trial that if the charges are proved against the

accused and, as a consequence thereto, he is convicted and sentenced, that such an opinion can be framed. The whole exercise has been conducted

on the basis of the involvement of the petitioner in FIR referred hereinabove about which an explanation appears to have been given by him in his

rejoinder affidavit, which, however, may not be relevant to determine at the moment. If the contention, as propounded by the State, that the

involvement of the petitioner came into limelight in four cases and, therefore, he was shown the door is accepted, the meaning that will flow from it is

that a presumption will be drawn against each public servant facing the changes of corruption that inthe ultimate analysis, he will be convicted in the

offence(s) levelled against him, as a corollary to which, he will lose his service. Such hypothesis or supposition cannot be countenanced in law and,

had it been so, it would have formed the basic structure of the rule itself, that such acts of omission and commission will lead to the presumption that

the employeehas a doubtful integrity or conduct unbecoming of a public servant.

Judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement, passed not by way of any punitive measure but for cleansing the administration of inefficient

and corrupt public servants without attaching any stigma, has been the subject matter of adjudication in several cases before the Supreme Court as

well as in this Court. It would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court at Paragraph No. 13 of the case titled “M.S.

Bindra v. Union ofIndia &Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 310â€​,which is reproduced hereunder:

“13. While reviewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny, i.e., want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add

that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials, no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion.

While evaluating the materials, the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim

‘nemofirutrepenteturpissimus’ (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a salutary guideline to judge human

conduct, particularly in the field of administrative law. The authorities should not keep their eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which

the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of “doubtful

integrityâ€, it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be

entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be

preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with

the label “doubtful integrityâ€​.

Looking at the instant case from the above perspective, an important facet which cannot be lost sight of is that the Committee has given a

complete goby to the Regulation 226(2) of the CSR read with the instructions (provided hereinbefore) buttressed to it in considering his compulsory

retirement. These lay great emphasis and spell out the need and demand to consider 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

considering the desirability of the retention or otherwise of a public servant, whose conduct has come under a smoke of cloud, the criminal cases

registered against him can be considered on the parapet and the bulwark of the chain of the documents/ service particulars, as stated hereinbefore.

But to say that the FIR(s) can form the sole basis to retire a public servant compulsorily is neither in tune nor in line with the scheme and mandate of

Article 226(2) of the CSR read with the guidelines supra and the judicial pronouncements holding the ground. Taking such a view that FIR(s) only will

form the basic structure of an order of compulsory retirement of a public servant will be repugnant and averse to the very concept and object of

compulsory retirement. In order to attach a semblance of fairness to such an order, the entire service record of a public servant, more significantly the

service record of the previous years preceding the decision, has to be assessed and evaluated. These cannot be skipped and shelved in formulating

such an opinion by taking umbrage under the plea that the same were not available, as stated here in this 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 the nonapplication of mind and the decision having been taken not on just grounds, but for a collateral purpose, and, to cap it all, how can the

conduct of a public servant be put through the wringer when there is no definite material to substantiate so. The reputation of a public servant cannot

be termed as doubtful and his conduct cannot be determined only on spoken words in the absence of any material on record. This is a fundamental

flaw in the order issued against the petitioner, whereby he has been shown the door.

The argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked by a public servant in the aid of

assailing an order of compulsory retirement and that such an order does not amount to a punishment, is based on the sound principles and cannons of

law, but to say that such an order can be passed by shunning the material on the basis of which such an order can be passed in terms of the rules,

regulations and the law governing the subject, is a spurious and a contrived argument. Such an argument is devoid of merit and does not have the legs

to stand upon.Â

Viewed in the context of what has been said and done above, the impugned order bearing No. 1279-GAD of 2016 dated 21st of November, 2016,

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. 1279GAD of 2016 dated 21st of November, 2016, 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.

Writ petition, alongwith connected MP(s), disposed of as above. Â