BAJ SINGH Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner who was posted as In-charge Naib Tehsildar inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 30.06.2015 by which respondents in purported exercise of powers under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations') have compulsory retired the petitioner in public interest. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as In-charge Naib Tehsildar and to accord him all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 30.06.2015 by which the petitioner was compulsory retired in public interest with effect from 01.07.2015. The State Government with a view to weed out the dead wood and in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency in the State services, constituted a Committee to consider the cases of the officers/ employees for premature retirement. The sanction to the aforesaid Committee was granted on 20.05.2015 by the State Government. The Committee held its meeting on 21.05.2015 in which the Committee in the backdrop of Article 226(2) of the Regulations considered the records of the employees as well as the records regarding involvement of government employees in corrupt services. In addition, the cases in which First Information Reports have been registered and investigation is either under way or has been completed were also placed before the Committee. The Committee thereafter again met on 25.05.2015 and Administrative Secretaries of concerned Departments were co-opted as members with regard to cases pertaining to the department.

(3.) The Committee decided the cases of each department separately. Inputs with regard to services particulars were obtained from the Administrative Department, as it was found by the Committee that in some cases, the details are incomplete. The Committee also observed that Annual Performance Reports (for short 'APRs') of the officers/employees are also required to be examined. The meeting of the Committee was adjourned to 11.06.2015 and on the said date, the Committee examined the available APRs which were incomplete. The Committee finally met on 26.06.2015 and considered the cases of officers/employees including that of the petitioner. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj participated in the meeting as co-opted member. The Committee on consideration of the record of the petitioner concluded that the petitioner does not enjoy good reputation in public due to consistent conduct over a period of time The Committee thereupon came to the conclusion that the petitioner has outlived his utility for the public and has bad reputation and has indulged in corrupt practices. Accordingly an order dated 30.06.2015 was passed by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired in public interest. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.