Major Set-Back to State in premature retirement case

HC dismisses 7 LPAs of State

13/12/2017

JAMMU, Dec 12: In a major Set-back to State when Division Bench of State dismissed LPAs of State challenging the judgment including Chief Engineer Prem Nath.
A Division Bench of State High Court Comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing AAG Rohit Kapoor for the State dismissed the LPA filed by the State against Mumtaz Hussain Bhat, Sher Singh, Girdhari Lal, Tarsem Lal, Farid Ahmed Tak, Sher Mohd Khan and Prem Nath Chief Engineer.
While dismissing the appeal, Division Bench observed that while the committee can always asses the integrity of a government servant and consider the reputation which he enjoys yet for assessing the same, there has to be some basis in the service records. Hearsay reputation or casual statements questioning the integrity of a person ought not to be considered for the same may be baseless or attributed for malafide purposes. Even for purposes of assessing the reputation of a government servant, the material must be cogent, the same must be in the shape of record which must then be considered in the correct perspective. Opinion regarding doubtful integrity and questionable reputation must emanate from an officer, who has had an opportunity to see the work and conduct of the officer from a close quarter on a day to day basis. Relying upon an opinion of Secretary of the Administrative Depart ment, who might not have any firsthand information and experience of having seen and worked with the officer concerned would be both risky and uncalled for and would give credence to the saying “give a dog a bad name and then kill it.”
Division Bench further observed that in State of J&K Vs Prem Nath , the committee has not discussed as to what was the source or material based upon which the petitioner was said to be not enjoying good reputation. If that be so, the order of pre mature retirement based upon any such assessment can only be said to be arbitrary and thus cannot be upheld on the legal touchstone. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the law discussed hereinabove, it can be seen that the Committee constituted by the Govt. did not at all consider the relevant material and had taken a decision based only upon the fact that an FIR had been registered by the Vigilance Organization Jammu against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, there was no justification for the State to pre-maturely retire the respondent-petitioner from service. With these observations Division Bench dismissed the appeal of State found to be without any merit. JNF

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty