IMPORTANT POINT
Compulsory retirement of a government employee must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of their entire service record and cannot rely solely on the existence of an FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the State of J&K (Now Union Territory) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.05.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the respondent's writ petition, SWP No. 257/2012, challenging his compulsory retirement order from Government service, issued by the appellants, has been allowed, quashing the order impugned therein with direction to the appellants to reinstate the respondent-writ petitioner and grant him all consequential benefits within the period specified therein. The learned Single Judge has further directed the respondents in the writ petition, i.e., the appellants herein not to evict the writ petitioner from Flat No. 4 of Government Flats, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

3. The facts are like this: The petitioner, being a Degree holder in Civil Engineering, was appointed as Junior Engineer on 09.03.1988. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer vide Government Order No. 548-Works of 2001 dated 28.12.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted as Incharge Assistant Executive Engineer vide Government Order No. 43-PW(R&B) of 2005 dated 18.02.2005. While the petitioner was posted as I/C Assistant Executive Engineer, J&K Police Housing Corporation, Srinagar, the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (CSRs), issued Order No. 189-GAD of 2012 dated 13.02.2012 giving notice to the petitioner that he, having already rendered 22 years of service, shall retire from service w.e.f. forenoon of 13.02.2012. He was allowed three months' pay and allowances in lieu of three months' notice.

4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid Government order through writ petition, SWP No. 257/2012, inter alia, on the grounds that the order has not been issued in public interest and that it is an arbitrary order. It was stated in the petition that the service record of the petitioner all along has remained unblemished, and that, while passing the impugned order, the Government has not taken his service record into consideration. It was, however, averred in the petition that while the petitioner was posted as I/C Assistant Executive Engineer in the Right River Circular Road Division, Srinagar, on the complaint of one Mushtaq Ahmad Burza, a case was registered against him under FIR No. 28/2007 at Police Station Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, and during the investigation of the case a false trap was laid against him by the Vigilance Organization. The investigation of the case culminated into filing of a challan on 04.06.2008 in the Court of Special Judge, Anticorruption, for offences under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 RPC. It was averred in the writ petition that the complainant tendered his evidence on 26.09.2011 and 27.09.2011 and that he turned hostile, supporting the petitioner.

5. The writ petition was contested on behalf of the Government, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order has been issued on the basis of recommendations made by the Committee of High Level Officers headed by Chief Secretary which formed its recommendations on the basis of the inputs from various agencies, including the overall service record and performance of the petitioner; that the petitioner may have been performing at any point of time, but at the time of consideration by the Committee of his overall service record and performance, he was found fit for premature retirement, and that after considering his case, the Committee rerecorded that the petitioner has dubious integrity and was caught red handed while accepting bribe. Thus the impugned order was issued in public interest and after due application of mind. The respondents denied that the impugned order was passed in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In para 4 of the aforesaid reply, respondent no.1 has quoted the report o