1. Through the medium of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Government Order No. 471-GAD of 2005 dt. 26th of April05 whereby the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service. Writ is also sought in the nature of mandamus commanding upon respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation and to grant him all the service benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner who was working as Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing, Kathua, is that he was served a charge sheet on 11th of March05 which was received by him on 11th of April05. He submitted reply to the charge sheet on 16th of April05. It is stated that the respondents instead of dropping the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner removed him from service vide order impugned date26th of April05. It is this order, which as indicated above, is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. On notice, respondents have filed counter stating therein that in order to have a proper administration and functioning of the various departments of the State, the Government has taken effective measures to remove such officers/officials who have become deadwood and whose performance has become dis-satisfactory. It is stated that a Committee of Senior Officers headed by the Chief Secretary was constituted and the said Committee after considering the reports from the concerned departments and various agencies as well as the opinion of the public in general held series of meetings and after scrutinizing the record of such officers/officials including the petitioner came to the conclusion that it is in public interest to remove such like officers from service and it was on this basis the petitioner who had attained 48 years of age and whose performance was not found satisfactory, was prematurely retired from service vide order impugned. It is stated that retaining such like officers in service is nothing but a liability on State exchequer. It is thus stated that the respondents have taken the said action in public interest, and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the respondents have not taken into consideration the reply furnished by the petitioner to the charge sheet and he has been removed from service without affording any opportunity of being heard, then the proceedings initiated by the respondents would be deemed to have been dropped. It is stated that the petitioner throughout his service career was not having any doubtful integrity, and therefore, cannot be declared as a deadwood. It is stated that the Committee constituted for the purpose should have taken into consideration the service record of the petitioner before recommending the case of the petitioner for premature retirement. It is stated that the Government, no doubt, has the power to retire a Government servant from service prematurely but this should be done only when the said official is having dis-satisfactory performance and is proved to be an officer/official of doubtful integrity and this should be done taking into consideration the entire service record of the said officer and not the record of a particular period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments reported as (1984) 2 SCC 369 Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and anr, AIR 1996 SC 2436, State of Orissa v. Ramchandra Das, 1997(7) SCC 463, Union of India v. G.Ganayutham, 1998(7) SCC 310, M.S. Bindra v. UOI, 1999(1) SCC 529, State of Gujrat v. Suryakant Chuni Lal Shah, 2003(4)SCC 59, Jugal Chander Saikia v. State of Assam and anr, 2004(7) Supreme 94, Pritam Singh v. UOI and 1993 KLJ 352, Ghulam Rasool Azad v. State and ors.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, before passing the order impugned, the State Government constituted a Committee of officers under the chair

Click Here to Read the rest of this document