KULDIP KUMAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sectio

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari. Thereafter by an order dated 02.04.2005, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Girdawar. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner performed the duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and no complaint was ever made against him at any point of time, however all of sudden by an order dated 26.04.2005, the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service in exercise of powers under Section 226(2) of the Civil Services Regulations. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non application of mind and as there is no material on record to assess the unsuitability of the petitioner for continuance in service and to arrive at the conclusion that the retention of the petitioner in service is detrimental to public interest. It is further submitted that the service record of the petitioner has not been considered while passing the impugned order and merely in view of the fact that the First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner, the same could not have form the basis, for taking a decision to prematurely retire the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not even named in the First Information Report and there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that the reputation of the petitioner is very bad. It is also urged that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Reader in the office of Naib Tehsildar and the order of allotment has been passed by the Tehsildar and the petitioner is not even remotely connected with passing of the aforesaid order, which even otherwise was upheld by the Commissioner and by this Court in OWP No.734/2005 vide order dated 04.09.2013. Lastly it is urged that the impugned order is arbitrary and suffers from vice of non application of mind. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in the cases, State of J&K and ors. Vs. Janak Singh, 2010(4) JKJ 89, LPASW No.122/2016 dated 07.10.2016, CDLSW No.09/2010 dated 05.03.2010, Parshotam Singh vs. State and ors. 2010 Legal Eagle (J&K) 206, Ram Dass vs. State and ors., 2010 Legal Eagle (J&K) 563, Muhammad Yousuf Bhat vs. State of J&K and ors, passed in SWP No.1606/2015 dated 11.11.2016, Mohd Mehraj-ud-din Khan vs. State of J&K and ors passed in SWP No.1965/2003 dated 27.12.2005, Satish Chander Khajuria vs. State of J&K and ors, passed in SWP No.2220/2015 dated 15.07.2016, State of J&K and another vs. Satish Chander Khajuria passed in LPASW No.122/2016 dated 07.10.2016 and decision of High Court of Gujarat in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999(1) SCC 529