‘Cogent material must for assessing reputation of Govt servant’
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 12: In a major set-back to State in the premature retirement cases, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sanjeev Kumar has dismissed seven LPAs of the State challenging the judgment of Single Bench.
These LPAs were filed against quashment of premature retirement of Prem Nath, Mumtaz Hussain Bhat, Sher Singh, Girdhari Lal, Tarsem Lal, Farid Ahmad Tak and Sher Mohd Khan ordered by the Single Bench.
While dismissing the appeals, Division Bench observed, “while the committee headed by Chief Secretary can always asses the integrity of a Government servant and consider the reputation which he enjoys yet for assessing the same there has to be some basis in the service records”.
“Hearsay reputation or casual statements questioning the integrity of a person ought not to be considered as the same may be baseless or attributed for malafide purposes”, the DB further said, adding “even for purposes of assessing the reputation of a Government servant, the material must be cogent and the same must be in the shape of record which must then be considered in the correct perspective”.
“Opinion regarding doubtful integrity and questionable reputation must emanate from an officer, who has had an opportunity to see the work and conduct of the officer from a close quarter on a day to day basis”, the DB said, adding “relying upon an opinion of Secretary of the administrative department, who might not have any firsthand information and experience of having seen and worked with the officer concerned, would be both risky and uncalled for and would give credence to the saying give a dog a bad name and then kill it”.
“In the State of J&K Vs Prem Nath, the committee has not discussed as to what was the source or material based upon which the petitioner was said to be not enjoying good reputation. If that be so, the order of pre mature retirement based upon any such assessment can only be said to be arbitrary and thus cannot be upheld on the legal touchstone”, the DB said, adding “the committee constituted by the Government did not at all consider the relevant material and had taken a decision based only upon the fact that an FIR had been registered by the Vigilance Organization Jammu against the petitioner”.
In that view of the matter, there was no justification for the State to pre-maturely retire the respondent-petitioner from service, the DB said while dismissing the appeals.
Follow our WhatsApp channel