1. Following is the sequence of events as gatherable from official records that forms the circumstantial backdrop to this piece of litigation.

2. With declared purpose of weeding out dead wood from public administration to improve efficiency, the Government vide circular No. 7-GAD of 2004 dated 7-5-2004, urged upon all Heads of Departments to start process of periodical review of the performance of officers/officials under their control and record appropriate remarks in their APRs. By another circular No. 5-GAD of 2003 dated 29-1-2003; all concerned were impressed upon to apprise General Administration Department about the follow up action taken. In continuation vide order No. 306-GAD of 2003 dated 5-3-2003, Government accorded sanction to constitution of a Committee comprising of Financial Commissioner Home, Pr. Secretary GAD and Commissioner/Secretary Law Department, plus the Secretary of concerned Administrative Department as co-opted member cases of whose department would be under consideration for weeding of undesirable officers/officials in terms of Article 226(2) and (3) of the J&K CSR. The committee was charged with the duty of recommending action against such officers to be processed further by concerned Administrative Department for obtaining approval of cabinet or competent authority. Under a follow up order being No. DAR (Adm) 71/2003-V dated 1-4-2003, all concerned were required to send requisite information about officers/officials under their control in prescribed proformas, with instructions to refer cases of those who have become ineffective or out-lived their utility along with their ACRs, and a general assessment about their reputation except the cases involving dereliction of duties liable to be dealt with under normal statutory procedure within a fixed time frame i.e. in cases of heads of department by or before 9-4-2003, Middle level officers by or before 23-4-2003 and other gazetted officers by or before 15-5-2003. The proforma prescribed for furnishing information as aforesaid interalia required APRs for five preceding years i.e. 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 along with adverse remarks, if any, and details of the works/contracts allotted by the officer those had become subject of any departmental enquiry or investigation by Vigilance department or invited adverse comment of audit and inspection department, along with a brief report by concerned Administrative Secretary as to whether the concerned employee had out lived his utility etc. By andother order being order No. 713-Gad of 2003 dated 10-6-2003 the order No. 306-Gad of 2003 above mentioned was partially modified to the extent of re-constituting the committee to comprise of the Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner (Finance), and Commissioner Secretary, Law department, while other ingredients of the aforesaid order No. 306 were kept intact.

3. The committee first met on 2-7-2003 and formulated the guidelines to be adopted for undertaking the assigned job as follows:-

"Present:

1.

Chief Secretary ...In chair.

2.

Financial Commissioner (Finance) ...Member.

3.

Commissioner/Secretary, Law Dept ...Member.

The committee took note of the principles which have crystallized, through various judgments of the Honble Courts, on the issue of compulsory retirements. These include the following:-

(a) Order of compulsory retirement is not regarded as a punishment under Article 311 of the Constitution of India;

(b) An employee who has outlived his utility can be compulsorily retired in public interest;

(c) If the general reputation of the officer/official is not good, he can be compulsorily retired in public interest.

(1).The Committee held that cases (i) where there is evidence that a government employee is responsible for any defalcation of Government money, (ii) where prosecution has been launched on the basis of investigation conducted by the Vigilance organization or the Crime branch and charges have been framed by the Court or (iii) in which a government employee is, in an inve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document