Back
2018 Supreme(J&K) 72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR, M.K. HANJURA, JJ.
State of J&K and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Jagmohan Singh Tandon - Respondents
LPASW No. 167 of 2017, MP No. 1 of 2017
Decided On : 06-02-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. H.A Siddiqui
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Pant
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to compulsorily retire a public servant must be based on a proper evaluation of the entire service record, including Annual Performance Reports, and should not be solely reliant on allegations or pending criminal cases. The decision must adhere to the principles of natural justice and be supported by evidence and material.
Headnote:
Compulsory Retirement - Public Servant - Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956, Article 226(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Article 226(2) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956 - The judgment discusses the legal framework of compulsory retirement of a public servant under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956. It highlights the principles of judicial review, the need for evidence and material to support the decision, and the importance of considering the entire service record of the public servant, including Annual Performance Reports, in reaching a decision on compulsory retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a public servant, was compulsorily retired by the appellant-State based on allegations of involvement in fraud and corruption. The respondent challenged the decision, arguing that the order of compulsory retirement was based on incomplete information and without holding any enquiry. The court found that the decision to retire the respondent was taken without considering his Annual Performance Reports and without sufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision to compulsorily retire the respondent was not based on a proper evaluation of his service record and was not in accordance with the principles of law. The court quashed the order of compulsory retirement and directed the reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits. The court also allowed the respondents to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues in the case revolved around the legality of the decision to compulsorily retire the respondent, the consideration of evidence and material in reaching the decision, and the adherence to the principles of law and natural justice in the process of compulsory retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision to compulsorily retire a public servant must be based on a proper evaluation of the entire service record, including Annual Performance Reports, and should not be solely reliant on allegations or pending criminal cases. The court emphasized the need for evidence and material to support the decision and the importance of following the principles of natural justice in the process of compulsory retirement.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of compulsory retirement, directed the reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits, and allowed the respondents to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with the law.
Hanjura, J.
1. Impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal is the defensibility and legal pragnability of the judgment and order dated 10.03.2017 of the learned Single Judge passed in SWP No. 2154/2015 by which the Govt. order No. 23-JKSRTC/GMA of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 to compulsorily retire the respondent in public interest with effect from the forenoon of 01.07.2015 has been quashed.
2. In adumbrating and analyzing the facts leading to the filing of the appeal it needs must be said that the learned writ Court has given a vivid account of the facts in the judgment assailed in the appeal. These are that the respondent, was posted as Incharge Managing Director, J&K State Road Transport Corporation at a time when his compulsory retirement was directed by the appellant-State. The respondent pleaded before the writ Court that the appellant-State did not consider his APRs while taking a decision to prematurely/compulsorily retire him from service. The impugned order has been passed in utter contravention of Employees Service Conditions Rules and Regulations, 1979. The respondent has further pleaded that the order of compulsorily retiring him from service is a result of the non-application of mind, inasmuch as the service record of the respondent has been excellent. Neither any departmental enquiry has been held against the respondent nor has any adverse report been communicated to him. The decision to compulsorily retire the respondent in public interest has been taken merely on the basis of a verification report.
3. To the contrary, the appellant-State has contended that a large number of complaints containing serious allegations were received against the respondent whereupon the matter was referred to the General Administration Department and the General Administration Department vide order dated 20.05.2015 directed the constitution of a Committee. The Committee took stock of the fact that the respondents name was found in a verification report where his involvement surfaced in big frauds/misappropriation of General Provident Fund of employees and backdoor appointments. It is further contended that since the APRs of the respondent were incomplete, therefore, the same could not be taken into consideration. On the basis of the conduct of the respondent which was unbecoming of a public servant, the Board of Directors passed a resolution to terminate the services of the respondent. It is also contended that a fact finding enquiry was also conducted into the complaints in which the prima facie involvement of respondent came to the surface.
4. The relevant excerpts of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant-State under the cover of which the order impugned in the writ petition has been justified and which is attached to the record of the writ Court read as under:
“The Committee set up vide Government Order No. 17-GAD of 2015 dated 20.05.2015, held its meetings on 21.05.2015, 11.06.2015 & 26.06.2015, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary and considered the case of Mr. Jagmohan Singh Tandon for retirement under Article 226(2) of J&K CSRs.
Through his consistent conduct over a period of time, the employee does not enjoy a good reputation in the public.
The accused Mr. Jagmohan Singh Tandon is figuring in a Verification No. Veri-C-08/2015, alleging therein that the officer is involved in a big frauds/misappropriation of GP Fund of employees and Backdoors appointments. Besides, there are other complaints pending against the officer, alleging therein that the accused has over a period of time caused huge loss to the JKSRTC. The accused is well known for committing several irregularities and has defamed the Government in the eyes of public.
It was reported that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the officer are incomplete.
The Committee took note of the fact that the accused while holding a post at the top level, in an important Corporation like State Road Transport has indulged in corrupt practices and involved in illegal act
