Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 26: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri has upheld the judgment of Writ Court whereby premature retirement of Chamel Singh, TSO and Romesh Singh, Store-Keeper was quashed.
After hearing AAG Raman Sharma for General Administration Department and Advocate Achal Sharma for the TSO and Store-keeper, the DB observed, “admittedly, a perusal of the file clearly reveals that the State Government has run roughshod over the writ petitioners by compulsory retiring them from service as the decision seems to be based on no material, in as much as the relevant material including the APRs and other service record which was required to be considered by the committee for considering the case of the petitioners for compulsory retirement has either not been placed before the committee or has not been considered”.
“It is pertinent to mention here that the important aspect of considering the APRs has been given a complete go by the committee while considering the writ petitioners’ compulsory retirement. The committee, in general, ought to have considered the entire service record of the public servant available in the shape of APRs, service book, personal file giving the details of the complaints received against him from time to time and so on and so forth”, DB said.
“While retiring the public servant compulsory, his case has to be considered on the basis of documents/ service particulars. It is conspicuous by its absence in the present case. If these are disregarded and omitted in the matter of the accord of consideration to the case of the compulsory retirement of a public servant, the whole exercise will get vitiated under the colour of non application of mind and decision having been taken not on just grounds”, the DB further said, adding “it appears the APRs of writ petitioner, have not been taken into account by the respondents. This itself speaks about the non application of mind by the Establishment Committee which apparently arrived at the conclusion without looking into the relevant record”.
DB further observed, “the power to retire compulsory a Government servant in terms of service rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest”, adding “although the scope of judicial review is limited, it has repeatedly been held by the Apex Court that when an order of premature retirement is challenged, the authorities concerned must disclose the materials on the basis of which the order was made”.
“Further, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be based on the sole basis of recommendations of the committee which has to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. Merely because the committee has made recommendations for retirement of writ petitioner, he cannot be compulsorily retired unless the competent authority comes to a conclusion after forming a bona fide opinion”, the DB said while dismissing the appeals.
Follow our WhatsApp channel