Rash Pal Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Another

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks quashing of Government Order No.1270-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 with a direction to the respondents to

treat him in service from the date of issuance of the order impugned and to give all consequential benefits. Â

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that in the year 2009 when the petitioner was serving the Tehsil Supply

Officer, on the basis of a complaint with respect to misappropriation of food grains by the officer/officials of the Consumer Affairs and Public

Distribution Department, District Udhampur, FIR No.22/2009 came to be registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu under Section 409, 420,

467, 468, 471 & 120-B RPC read with Section 5/2 P.C Act, Svt. 2006. The Government vide Order No.51-GAD(Vig) of 2013 dated 14.10.2013

granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner amongst others. Aggrieved, the petitioner field OWP No.173/2014 challenging the sanction granted

to his prosecution. The petitioner also called in question the competence of the Crime Branch to investigate the matter concerning a public servant

by filing 561-A No.311/2016. Both these petitions are stated to be pending in this Court.  According to the petitioner, on the basis of aforesaid FIR

and for extraneous considerations, the petitioner, having attained 56 years of age only was directed to retire prematurely w.e.f. 22.11.2016 in terms of

the order impugned in this petition.

The respondents have filed their reply. The respondents submit that the Government in order to consider the cases of officers/officials who indulge

in corruption, enjoy bad reputation in public and create impediment in delivery of services to the general public accorded sanction to the constitution of

a Committee. The Committee after considering the record observed that investigation of FIR No.22/2009 registered at Police Station, Crime Branch,

Jammu revealed that the petitioner in connivance with others not only misappropriated ration shown in excess but also embezzled an amount of

Rs.1.05 crore entrusted to him by the department for payment of carriage charges. Sanction for prosecution of the petitioner among others was

granted vide Government order dated 14.10.2013. The Committee, on consideration of the record, came to the conclusion that it would not be useful to

retain the petitioner in Government service any further and therefore, recommended retirement of the petitioner prematurely under Article 226(2) of

J&K Civil Services Regulations, 1956.Â

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

malafide 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 cases

of corruption, Committee has observed that the petitioner did not enjoy good reputation due to his consistent conduct over a period of time; therefore,

his continuance in service was not in public interest.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 FIR No.22/2009 registered at Crime Branch, 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 apparently 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.

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 solely 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 held entitled to reinstatement

forthwith along with all consequential benefits. Â