Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5990

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
Saral Singh Manhas – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
T.A. No. 61/5693/2021|SWP No. 2844 of 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sudershan Sharma
For the Respondents: Sudesh Magotra, Hunar Gupta

Compulsory retirement invalid without full service record review; pending FIR involvement alone, absent adverse entries or conviction, cannot justify order, rendering it punitive rather than public interest measure. (38 words)

Headnote:(A) J&K Civil Service Regulations - Article 226(2) - Compulsory retirement - Government servant compulsorily retired at age 52 based on involvement in pending corruption FIR and perceived bad public reputation - Committee failed to consider entire service record including recent good/very good APRs with integrity beyond doubt, and no source specified for reputation assessment - Mere involvement in criminal case, without established guilt or adverse service entries, insufficient for compulsory retirement - Order punitive, lacking public interest basis, and vitiated by non-application of mind. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 29)

(B) Compulsory retirement - Judicial review - Limited scope, but order invalid if not based on entire service record, used as shortcut to avoid inquiry, or as punitive measure instead of addressing unsuitability - Reputation assessment requires cogent record-based material from supervising officers. (Paras 13, 16, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
Government servant with unblemished service record promoted multiple times, involved in 2006 corruption FIR (pending trial) alleging misuse of position causing financial loss in infrastructure project - Committee recommended premature retirement citing poor public reputation and corruption perception, without examining available positive APRs - Challenged as arbitrary; case transferred from High Court to Tribunal post reorganization.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed; servant deemed continued in service till superannuation age (60 years) despite already attained - Entitled to all dues, service benefits, and retiral benefits for out-of-service period - Compliance within two months.

Issues: Whether compulsory retirement valid without considering full service record, based solely on pending criminal case and unsubstantiated reputation; whether order punitive rather than public interest-driven.

Ratio Decidendi: Compulsory retirement requires examination of entire service record; mere FIR involvement without conviction or adverse entries insufficient - Order punitive if ignores positive APRs and lacks material basis for integrity doubt, failing public interest test.

Result: Transferred Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's service history and impugned retirement order (Para 1 , 2)
2. procedural history and challenge to retirement (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. parties' contentions on corruption and service record (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. object and scope of compulsory retirement regulations (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. judicial review requires entire service record consideration (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. committee's basis for retirement: fir involvement (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. mere fir involvement insufficient without guilt proof (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
8. quash retirement; grant service benefits (Para 30 , 31 , 32)

ORDER

Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member

The applicant is aggrieved of Government Order no. 1274-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order), whereby he was compulsorily retired from Government Service w.e.f. 22.11.2016 in exercise of powers under Article 226 (2) of the J&K Civil Service Regulations. The foundation for the impugned order was the involvement of the applicant and some others in case FIR No. 30 of 2006 registered in Vigilance Organization, Jammu on u/s Section 5(1) (d) read with 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B RPC with regard to the allegations of misusing his official position while posted as AEE, District Doda in Electric and Maintenance Division (Udhampur/Doda), in conspiracy with others causing loss to the tune of Rs. 16,14,784/- to the State Exchequer in execution of work for construction of 33/11 kV Receiving Station II at Dalaian Tehsil Bhaderwah in which Government Sanction was accorded for his prosecution along with others.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer on 16.03.1988 and after serving at various places in the said capacity, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 26.04.2002. The service record of the applicant remain good with regard to his work and conduct and he was further promoted as AEE on 07.06.2005 and worked in the said capacity in Sub Division, Doda, Division Udhampur till 08.08.2011. He was transferred to Sub Division Bhaderwah on 07.10.2016.

3. It is averred that the entire service record of the applicant shows that he has an excellent service career, having no adverse entry in his Annual Performance Reports (APRs), but without any application of mind, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of extraneous consideration in order to harm the reputation of the applicant.

4. The applicant has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement by filing SWP No. 2844 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“To issue writ of certiorari quashing Government Order No. 1274-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016, whereby notice has been given to the petitioner, AEE, EM&RE Division Doda, Sub Division Bhaderwah of the Power Development Department that having rendered 28 years service and attained 52 years of age shall retire w.e.f. forenoon of 22.11.2016 with a prayer for quashing the said order as the same is illegal and inoperative and has been passed against the spirit of Article 226 (2) of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations with a direction to the official respondents, particularly the respondent No. 1 directing him to treat the petitioner in service as AEE EM&RE Division Doda Sub Division Bhaderwah of the Power Development Department; or Issuance of any other writ, order, command or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems proper under the circumstances in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

5. After the reorganization of State of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and in view of the Notification No. G.S.R. 267 (E) dated 29.04.2020 read with notification No. G.S.R. 317 (E) dated 28.05.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis regarding service disputes of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5990

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative MemberSaral Singh Manhas – AppellantVersusState of J&K – RespondentT.A. No. 61/5693/2021|SWP No. 2844 of 2016

Compulsory retirement invalid without full service record review; pending FIR involvement alone, absent adverse entries or conviction, cannot justify order, rendering it punitive rather than public interest measure. (38 words)

Cases Referred (4)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
Saral Singh Manhas – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
T.A. No. 61/5693/2021|SWP No. 2844 of 2016