AHSAN Vs. STATE OF JK AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire gamut of the controversy raised herein this petition revolves round the plea whether the Government order bearing No. 1277-GAD of 2015 dated 21st of November, 2016, issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, whereby notice was given to the petitioner, namely, Shri Ahsan-ul-Haq Khan, I/C AE, Sub-Division Zainapora, REW, Shopian, of the PW(R&B) Department, to the effect that he having already rendered 34 years of service and also having attained the age of 55 years, shall retire from service w.e.f. the forenoon of the 22nd day of November, 2016, can withstand the test of judicial scrutiny.

(2.) The pith and core of the petition of the petitioner is that during the entire tenure of his service, he worked with great deal of honesty and dedication at different places of posting and, at the relevant point of time, i.e. the day when the order aforesaid was issued, he was holding the post of AE, Sub-Division Zainapora, REW, Shopian, in the PW(R&B) Department. His past Service carrier is unblemished and he has, all along, been given various promotions on the basis of his suitability, merit and excellent service record. It is stated that in the year 2011, the petitioner was implicated in a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 24/2011, registered by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 161 and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), with which the investigations commenced. Resultantly, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Order No. 678-DRDK of 2011 dated 7th of December, 2011. Thereafter, vide Government order No. 177-PWD(R&B) of 2015 dated 21st of July, 2015, the petitioner was reinstated in service and was posted in R&B Sub Division, Handwara. In the FIR aforesaid, it is stated that the charge sheet has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction and the case is pending disposal before the Court. The Respondent Department, instead of contesting the said proceedings, issued the order impugned in the writ petition, whereby the retirement of the petitioner was ordered under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations.

(3.) The Respondents have resisted and controverted the petition of the petitioner, on the grounds, inter alia, that the Government has to perform a multitude of tasks in order to implement various welfare measures of public interest, and the paramount aim is of providing clean and effective administration to the people of the State. In order to make the administration effective, a periodic review of all Officers is taken up by the Government, the aim and object being to encourage honest and efficient Government servants and, simultaneously, to weed out the inefficient and corrupt officers from the services in the public interest. Whileas, various incentives and awards are given to honest and efficient officers/officials, recourse is taken to the provisions of Article 226(2) and (3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956, for the removal of such Government officials from the State services, who have become deadwood on account of their indulging in inefficient and corrupt practices. The order of compulsory retirement passed in the case of the petitioner is based on the object of weeding out the deadwood from the State services. Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations is designed to infuse the administration with initiative for better administration and for augmenting the general efficiency so as to meet the expanding horizons and cater to the new challenges faced by the State to provide sensitivity, probity, non-irritative public relation and enthusiastic creativity, which can be achieved by eliminating the deadwood. In order to consider the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement, under and in terms of Government order bearing No. 17-GAD (Vig) 2015 dated 20th of May, 2015, sanction was accorded to the constitution of a Committee to consider the cases of the Officers/officials for compulsory retirement. The record regarding the involvement of the petitioner in corrupt practices was placed before the Committee. In addition, the cases, in which FIRs have been lodged and are under probe, were also placed before the Committee, including the FIR No. 24/2011, registered by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006 and Sections 161 and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The Committee finally met on 21st of November, 2016 and, in the case of the petitioner herein, observed that on the basis of verification conducted by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, it came to fore that the petitioner, during his posting as I/C AE, REW, Sub-Division, Pattan, in December, 2011, was found involved in demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 6,000/- from the complainant for processing/passing of bills in respect of two Dug Wells constructed under MGNREGA Scheme. A trap was laid by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, in which the tainted money was recovered from the possession of a Clerk in the office of the petitioner, who had received the same from the complainant on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, FIR No. 24/2011 was registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, for the commission of offences detailed hereinabove. The Committee having regard to the complaints/FIR filed against the petitioner opined that the petitioner has indulged in corrupt practices and has been involved in several illegal acts during his service tenure, thereby substantiating the fact he has outlived his utility as a Government servant. The Committee, therefore, recommended for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations. The recommendations so made were accepted by the Competent Authority, as a consequence of which, the impugned order was issued. It has been, accordingly, pleaded by the Respondent-State that the impugned order is legal. It is in accordance with law. The writ petition, as such, is legally misconceived, without any merit, and, in sequel thereto, merits dismissal.