Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 21: High Court has quashed the Government order regarding premature retirement of Chief Enforcement Officer of Jammu Municipal Corporation, Satish Khajuria.
The petitioner was retired from Government service with effect from forenoon of July 1, 2015 by allowing him three months pay and allowances in lieu of 3 months notice on his having rendered 22 years of service.
After hearing Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi for the petitioner whereas Senior AAG SS Nanda appearing for the State, Justice B S Walia observed, “the recommendations have been formulated by the Committee constituted by the Government only on account of involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case”, adding “involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case doesn’t mean that he was guilty. The respondents ought to have borne in mind that the petitioner was still to be tried in a court of law and the truth was to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution was ultimately conducted”.
Justice Walia further observed, “but before that stage was reached, it was highly improper to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement in the case”, adding “it is true that there were some severe allegations against the petitioner, but on mere allegations such a grave action was unwarranted”.
“The Government could have awaited for the decision in the case. There was no reason to show such a promptitude in exercise of power under Article 226(2) of the CSRs. Awaiting the result of the trial was more necessitated because there was no other material which would warrant compulsory retirement of the petitioner”, Justice Walia said, adding “in these circumstances, this court is of the view that the respondents have not exercised their power in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service”.
“Recommendations by the committee do not disclose taking of APRs/service record into account. In the absence of APRs having been available with the committee and same not having been taken into account, the objections are not maintainable”, High Court said, adding “in view of decision of Apex Court in State of Gujarat Versus Suryakant Chunilal Shah mere registration of FIR cannot furnish the basis to the competent authority to retire a public servant in public interest”.
“It is brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner has not reached the age of superannuation and is to retire on 31.07.2016. In the circumstances, while allowing the writ petition, impugned order is quashed and petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits”, Justice Rabstan directed while restricting the payment of salary from the date of order of premature retirement till reinstatement to 30%.
“Petitioner shall also not be entitled to any interest on monetary benefits”, High Court said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel