Srinagar: 03 Mar 2018
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has quashed an order by Managing Director, J&K PCC, Ltd, prematurely retiring an employee, observing that mere filing of a case by Vigilance Organisation cannot form the basis of retiring him compulsorily.
A bench of Justice M K Hanjura also underlined that the government cannot take any action which was in violation of rules, regulations and the law on the subject.
“The argument of the counsel for the respondent that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked by a public servant in the aid of assailing an order of compulsory retirement and that such an order does not amount to a punishment, is based on the sound principles and canon of law, but to say that such an order can be passed by shunning the material on the basis of which such an order can be passed in terms of the rules, regulations and the law governing the subject, is a spurious and a contrived argument,” the court said and rejected the assertion as devoid of merit which “does not have the legs to stand upon.”
The employee, Mohammad Shafi Shah, had challenged the defensibility and the legality of the order (36 of 2015 dated 30th June, 2015) passed by the Managing Director, J&K PCC, Ltd., Srinagar, directing his retirement from service with effect from the forenoon of 1 July 2015 in terms of Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (CSR). Shah initially worked as a daily rated worker in the J&KPCC.
He was regularized as Junior Assistant in the year 1992. Thereafter, he qualified the AMIE examination and obtained a diploma certificate in Civil Engineering. He later made a representation for his promotion before the government which remained under process for about seven years and, thereafter, in the year 2000, he was promoted as Assistant Manager.
In the meanwhile, on the basis of the complaints, challenging the genuineness of the Shah’s certificate, the matter was investigated into by a High Empowered Committee, which came to the conclusion that the degree is genuine. However, the complaints were also filed before the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK), who registered an F.I.R bearing No. 07/2011 u/s 420, 467,
468 RPC against the petitioner, as a consequence of which, he was detained and sent to the custody for a period of more than 48 hours.
The department placed Shah under suspension and the same was never reviewed, compelling the him to approach the Court and the government was directed by the later to review Shah’s suspension but of no avail. He filed a contempt petition, seeking compliance of the order. In his petition, Shah also stated in the meantime, on 10-03-2015, another F.I.R (18/2015) was registered by the VOK, alleging that he has assets, licit to the known sources of his income. Explaining the accusation,
He submitted that the property shown to be belonging to him does not actually belong to him. He was granted pre-arrest bail by the Court on 19-03-2015. Shah also stated that the investigation initiated to probe the “baseless” allegations against him is not being completed and no progress has been achieved in it and to add to the misery inflicted upon him, the MD come up with the 30 June 2015 order, compulsorily retiring him.
In objections to Shah’s plea, the government pleaded that for providing clean and effective administration to the public, it conducts a periodic review of all its officers with the intention of appreciating and encouraging the honest and efficient Government servants and provide clean and effective administration to the people and maintain high standards of efficiency besides weeding out the dead wood in the shape of inefficient and corrupt officers and officials.
Taking an overall view of the matter, the court observed that the bottom line of the order of compulsory retirement of Shah was the registration of FIR(s) against him.
“Merely that cases have been registered against the petitioner (Shah) by the Vigilance Organization (VOK) cannot form the basis of retiring him compulsorily,” the court said and quashed the order and directed government to reinstate him and allow him to work on the post, which he was holding at the time of passing of the order of his compulsory retirement with all consequential service benefits.
