MOHD. IQBAL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, initially appointed as Patwari in respondent-department in the year 1984, was promoted as Girdawar in the year 2009. FIR No. 02 of 2013, Police Station, Vigilance Organization Jammu, lodged against the petitioner, was followed by his suspension vide Order No.SQ/1302-06 dated 23.01.2013 and thereafter his premature retirement vide Order No.877-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 impugned herein.

(2.) Petitioner challenges order impugned on various grounds, including the one that order is bad in law as the same has been passed without due and proper application of mind and in utter disregard and total violation of constitutional protections available to him, and in absence of any enquiry, the said order de hors the rules. Neither any enquiry is said to have been conducted nor has petitioner been given any chance to participate in the same prior to passing of impugned order. It is also averred that the order impugned has been made in gross violation of principle of natural justice as the same, on the face of it, is contrary to the principle of natural justice. Another ground set out by the petitioner is that FIR No.02/2013, registered by Vigilance Organization Jammu, has remained pending for a long time and challan was presented against him on 10.08.2015, i.e. much after registration of FIR, and also the order impugned has been issued prior to filing of challan, therefore, the order impugned has been passed in a mechanical manner without due and proper application of mind and in mala fide exercise of powers. Registration of FIR itself, as maintained by petitioner, cannot be a ground for making compulsory retirement, that too when investigation is pending. Further ground of challenge to impugned order, is that order impugned is stigmatic and punitive in nature, to say the least, and respondents have taken harsh, hasty and penal action against the petitioner. The next ground of challenge is that order impugned has been passed in total violation of provisions contained in Section 126(2) of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 311(2) of Constitution of India, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Reply has been filed by respondent No.1, in which he contends that the Government has to perform multitude of tasks in order to implement various welfare measures in the public interest. The paramount task is that of providing clean and effective administration to the people of the State. It is also contended that in order to make the administration effective, periodic review of all of its officers is taken by the State Government to encourage honest and efficient Government servants and simultaneously weed out the inefficient and corrupt officers from the services in the public interest. At the same time, various measures are being taken to deal with unscrupulous, inefficient and corrupt officers to instill the faith of public in the administration. While as various incentives and awards are given to honest and efficient officers, recourse is being taken to the provisions of Article 226(2) and (3) of J &K Civil Services Regulations, 1956, for removal of such Government servants from State service, who have become deadwood on account of having indulged in corrupt practices. It is insisted that compulsory retirement in terms of Article 226(2) of J &K Civil Service Regulations, 1956, is designed to infuse the administration with initiative for better administration and augmenting efficiency, so as to meet the expanding horizons and cater to new challenges faced by the State to provide speedy, sensitivity, probity, non-irritative public relation and enthusiastic creativity, which can be achieved by eliminating the deadwood. It is further insisted that in order to consider the cases of officers/officials, who have indulged in corrupt practices, enjoy bad reputation in public and have created impediments in delivery of services to the general public in a smooth and effective manner, and in terms of Government Order No. 17-GAD (Vig.) 2015 dated 20.05.2015, sanction was accorded to the constitution of Committee to consider the cases of officers/officials for premature retirement and the committee, so constituted, held its various deliberations and the matter was posted for further discussions from time to time and on 11.06.2015, the Committee deliberated upon the charges against each employee. The Committee finally met on 26.06.2015 and, amongst others, also considered the case of the petitioner. In the said meeting, the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, also participated as co-opted member. The committee, on consideration of the record, observed that petitioner did not enjoy good reputation in the public due to his inconsistent conduct over a period of time and also noticed that he was caught red handed by the Vigilance team, accepting bribe of rupees seven thousand from the complainant-Mr. Abdul Qayoom, for issuance of copy of Khasra Girdawari of land, falling under Khasra No.131/1, measuring 10 kanals and 07 marlas, situated at Village Simbli Darhal. In this regard, FIR No.02/2013 under Section 5(2) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006 and Section 161-RPC at Police Station, Vigilance Organization Jammu was registered against the petitioner. It is asserted that the Committee, while considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement, observed that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner were incomplete. The Committee also took the notice of the fact that the petitioner, holding the post in the Revenue Department, was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe in lieu of issuance of copy of Khasra Girdawari to the complainant, thereby, substantiating the fact that he has outlived his utility to the public. The Committee, therefore, recommended for retirement of the petitioner under Article 226(2) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations and the recommendations, so made, were accepted by the competent authority which culminated into issuance of order impugned, therefore, the respondents have defended their case that order impugned is legal and in accordance with law.