DB dismisses three LPAs of State

14/02/2018

Jammu, Feb 13: Another Big Jolt to State of J&K, When A Division Bench of State High Court Comprising Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar and Justice M. K. Hanjura dismissed the appeals filed by State of J&K against Bashir Ahmed Tehsildar, Ghulam Ahmed Malik and Subash Raina.
The landmark judgment written by Justice MK Hanjura for the Division Bench, observed that may be that the observations made by the Single Judge may not cut much ice and may not be of much significance and relevance in the case but the sphere of the jurisdiction of the Committee was to consider each such cases for compulsory retirement in which the charges of corruption were leveled against each employee. How is that a few employees were picked up for such consideration and the others were allowed to go scot free and break through? The societal concerns of administering law and justice are not legal luxuries. The state cannot indulge in the luxury of legal sophistry with purposes more ulterior then transparent, concealing more and revealing less and masquerading as if fighting for principles! It is a sheer marvel that Courts have worked in and survived such chaotic conditions.
Division Bench further observed that 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 go by to the Regulation 226(2) of the J&K CSR read with the instructions (provided hereinbefore) buttressed to it in considering his compulsory retirement. These lay great emphases 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 case or 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 an FIR 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 J&K CSR read with the guidelines supra and the judicial pronouncements holding the ground. Taking such a view that an FIR 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 non application 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 or source to justify so. This is a fundamental flaw in the order issued against the respondent, whereby he has been shown the door without looking into the fact that the respondent had been acquitted in the case on which explicit reliance has been put by the appellant in directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent, which fact has not been disputed by the appellant-State.
Division Bench further observed that , merely that a case or cases has/have been registered against the respondent by the Vigilance Organization cannot form the basis of retiring him compulsorily, as a corollary to which the judgment/order of the Single Judge impugned here in this appeal.
With these observations, Division Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the State.JNF

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty