Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Parshottam Singh -Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. -Resopndent
SWP No. 1397-2006
Decided On : 08-04-2010
Compulsory Retirement - Government Order No. 9903-GAD of 2006 - J&K XSR - [Baldev Raj Chandra v. Union of India, 1980(4) SCC 321 : AIR 1981 SC 70; H.C.Gagri v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65; Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948; Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC 2218; Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) SCC 504; Union of India v. Bulal Dutt, 1993 (2) SCC 179; S. Ramchandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424; State of J&K v. Jia Lal Gupta, 1994 SLJ 24; Chief General Manager, SBI v. Suresh Chandra Behera, AIR 1995 SCC 1745; K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 277; Allahabad Bank Officders Association v. Allahabad Bank, 1996 (4) SCC 504; M.S.Bindra v. Union Of India, 1998 (7) SCC 310; M.S.Bindra v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 3058; State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999(1) SC 529; State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M.Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109; State of U.P v. Chater Sen, 2005(9) SCC 592; Pritam Singh v. Union of India, 2005(9) SCC 748; Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of J&K & Ors, LPA Nos. 27J and 28J of 2005 decided on 5-8-2005; Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan v. State of J&K & Ors., 2006(3)JKJ 240(HC); Shah Latief v. State of J&K & Ors., 2008(1) JKJ 573 [HC]; SWP No. 828 and other bunch of petitions titled Zareena Banoo & connected matters v. State and others, 2008 (3) JKJ HC-106; Janak Singh v. State of J&K & Ors., 2009(1) JKJ 588[HC] - An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of mis-behaviour. The order has to be passed by the Government on forming opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. The Government or the Review Committee shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter, attaching more importance to record and performance during the later years. An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. Compulsory retirement can be questioned on the grounds of mala fide, lack of evidence, being arbitrary or malice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was prematurely retired from service and challenged the Government Order. He claimed to have an unblemished service career and contended that the retirement order was arbitrary and outcome of malice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's service record and without evidence of his alleged corrupt practices. The Court also noted that the order of compulsory retirement should be based on the public interest and the entire service record should be considered.
Issues: The core question was whether interference in the petitioner's premature retirement was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the legal principles that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, and it should be based on the public interest and the entire service record. The order can be questioned on the grounds of mala fide, lack of evidence, being arbitrary or malice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed due to lack of evidence and arbitrary nature of the decision.
2. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner came to be appointed as Patwari in the Revenue Department on 18th of August’ 1980. He worked to the best satisfaction of his superiors and earned best and excellent APRs, came to be promoted as Girdawar on 2nd of April’ 2005 on the basis of service record including the APRs. He discharged his duties as Girdawar to the best satisfaction of his superiors and no complaint was made against him. He is having an unblemished service career. It is further contended that he hails from a very small village and due to jealousy a conspiracy came to be hatched against him, but he never cared and un-detterdly performed his duties consciously, efficiently and fairly without fear and favour. He remained as Tehsil President as well as District President of Patwar Association. A strike was called in the month of August for three consecutive days i.e., 10th, 11th and 12th of August’ 2006, which became the bone of dispute and the superiors in order to punish him passed the impugned order. The impugned order came to be passed without considering the service record and the fact that he was promoted as Girdawar in the year 2005. Virtually the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily, without any evidence/application of mind and is the outcome of malice.
3. Respondents have filed the counter and resisted the petition on the grounds detailed therein. It is averred that the impugned order came to be passed on the basis of reports received from concerned departments and various agencies as well as the opinion from the public in general and in the public interest. It is also averred that petitioner has indulged in corrupt practices at different stages of his service career and the material considered by the Committee would demonstrate that the premature retirement of petitioner does not suffer from the varies of law rather has been passed on the basis of information received from a cross section of public about the general reputation of the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the Committee while recommending the premature retirement of officers-officials including the petitioner, has taken note of various facts and the inputs/material provided by the Vigilance Organization and Additional Director General, CID about the reputation of such officers among the public.
4. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder.
5. The core question in the writ petition is, whether in the given circumstances of the case interference is warranted.
6. In order to return the findings, it is necessary to know what are the parameters, guidelines and tests laid down by the Apex Court, this Court and other High Courts of the country in various cases reported as Baldev Raj Chandra v. Union of India, 1980(4) SCC 321 : AIR 1981 SC 70; H.C.Gagri v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65; Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948; Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC 2218; Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) SCC 504; Union of India v. Bulal Dutt, 1993 (2) SCC 179; S. Ramchandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424; State of J&K v. Jia Lal Gupta, 1994 SLJ 24; Chief General Manager, SBI v. Suresh Chandra Behera, AIR 1995 SCC 1745; K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 277; Allahabad Bank Officders Association v. Allahabad Bank, 1996 (4) SCC 504; M.S.Bindra v. Union Of India, 1998 (7) SCC 310; M.S.Bindra v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 3058; State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999(1) SC 529; State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M.Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109; State of U.P v. Chater Sen, 2005(9) SCC 592; Pritam Singh v. Union of India, 2005(9) SCC 748; Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of J&K & Ors, LPA Nos. 27J and 28J of 2005 decided on 5-8-2005; Mohammad Mehraj
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
