STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS Vs. RAHUL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 24.11.2016 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in SWP No. 1661/2004 (Rahul Sharma v. State of J&K and others), whereby the order impugned in the writ petition, i.e., the order whereby the writ petitioner, father of the respondent had been ordered to be compulsorily retired w.e.f. 21.09.2004, was quashed.

(2.) For appreciating the grounds of challenge taken in this appeal, it would be apposite to briefly notice a few facts, which are stated below:-

(3.) The State has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge did take note of paragraph 27 of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah; 1999 (1) SCC 529, wherein the Supreme court has categorically held that whether mere involvement of an employee in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement would depend upon circumstances of each case and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee and that the competent authority in the case of the respondent had taken note of only the FIR, which had been registered against him on the allegation of corruption, but also the opinion of the Committee constituted for considering the cases fit for compulsory retirement, which had also opined that the respondent did enjoy a good reputation in public through his consistent conduct over a period of time. However, on behalf of the respondent it was submitted that the issues, which the appellants have raised in the instant appeal, are no longer res integra as the same were considered threadbare, discussed and decided by this Court in the case of State of J&K and others v. Abdul Majid Wani (LPA No. 95/2017) decided on 06.10.2017.