Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Thursday, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that mere registration of a FIR against a public servant shall not be a ground for compulsorily retiring the official concerned. Reinstatement of the petitioner has been directed by the bench, who held the post of Assistant Manager in the Public Works Department and against whom the Vigilance Organisation Kashmir registered FIRs under Sections 420, 468 and 467 under the Ranbir Penal Code as well as has alleged the petitioner for possessing assets illicit to his known sources of income.
Noting into the petitioner’s affirmation towards the investigation into the baseless allegations against him not being completed, the bench quashed “the order of compulsory retirement under Article 226(2) of the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR)”. The emphasis on the “Annual Performance Reports” (APR) of the petitioner was done by the bench wherein his achievements have been judged from time to time by his superiors as excellent/satisfactory/good. It is very important to review a person entire service record including his service book, personal file and Integrity Certificate. Looking into the Article referred, the instructions issued by the state government in June, 1999 and the Office Memo of General Administration Department of October, 2010, the high court ruled that the screening committee, in determining the compulsory retirement of a public servant, shall be guided by the following factors- “the number and nature of complaints received, if any, against the government servant pertaining to his doubtful integrity or corruption; the number 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”.
The bench has observed that the order of compulsory retirement and hence taken in the virtue of preservation of public interest could not be treated as a major punishment and also Article 311(2) of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Finally the bench envisaged the power of Judicial Review of an order of compulsory retirement if the court is satisfied that any such order is (a) malafide; (b) that it is based on no evidence; or (c) that it is arbitrary.
86540
103860
630
114
59824