State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors @APPELLANT@Hash Hamid Ahmad Wani & Ors

Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard

finally.Â

In this intra-court appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 28.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the

writ petition preferred by the respondent against the order of his compulsory retirement in public interest dated 30.06.2015 has been allowed and the

aforesaid order has been quashed and appellants have been directed to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits. In order to appreciate,

the appellants challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention which are stated infra. Â

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Town Planner in Town Planning Organization, Kashmir on 12.03.1993. Thereafter, he was promoted

as Town Planner on officiating basis vide order dated 17.08.2001. The respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Town Planner and was further

promoted vide order dated 23.05.2014 on officiating basis as Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority. The respondent was compulsorily

retired from service w.e.f. 01.06.2015 in purported exercise of powers under Article 226 (2) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations vide

order dated 30.06.2015 The aforesaid order was passed on the ground that first information report namely FIR No. 27/2008 for offences under

Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006 and Section 120-B, 109 of the RPC was

registered against the respondent by Vigilance Organization, Jammu.     Â

The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge, inter alia on the ground that, while passing the impugned order, the appellants have

not taken into account the service record of the respondent and merely on the basis of registration of the first information report, have come to the

conclusion that continuance of the respondent in service is not desirable in public interest. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.12.2017

allowed the writ petition and has quashed the order of compulsory retirement and has directed the appellants to re-instate the respondent with all

consequential benefits. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this intra-court appeal has been filed.   Â

Learned Advocate General submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the controversy involved in the writ petition in its correct

perspective. On the other-hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.   Â

We have considered the submissions made on both sides. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. V. Suryakant Chunilal Shah,

(1999) 1 SCC 529 has held that services of dishonest and corrupt officers should be dispensed with in public interest. It has further been held that

efficiency and honesty of an officer has to be assessed on the basis of material for which confidential reports are an important input. Mere

involvement of an employee in criminal case or pendency of criminal case in itself does not sufficient to compulsory retire an employee in public

interest. It has further been held that Review Committee exceeded its jurisdiction in doubting respondent’s integrity on the basis of pending

criminal cases when there was no indication of doubtful integrity in the confidential reports. The aforesaid decision was considered and was explained

by the Supreme Court in the case of Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 59, in which it was held that in the case of

Suryakant Chuni Lal Shah (supra), there was no material before the Review Committee inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the Character

Roll entries, the integrity was not doubtful at any time and the Character Roll entries subsequent to respondents promotion to the post of Assistant

Food Controller (Class-II) were not available. In the aforesaid circumstance, it was held that the compulsory retirement in the case of Suryakant

Chunilal Shah (supra) was bad. From perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is axiomatic that the order of

compulsory retirement has been passed merely on the basis of registration of first information report against the respondent and the service record of

the respondent has not been taken into account. Â

Thus, in view of aforesaid well settled legal position and in the facts of the case, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the

learned Single Judge. For yet another reason, no interference is called for. A Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions had quashed the orders of

compulsory retirement passed by the appellant, merely on the basis of registration of First Information Report, by an order dated 22.12.2016 passed in

SWP No.1947/2015. Admittedly, the aforesaid order has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and the State Government has preferred a

Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. However, the Special Leave Petition has been withdrawn and the order passed by this Court has

been implemented. Â

In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in the appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.     Â