Quashing of compulsory retirement of KAS officer
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 3: Supreme Court today dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against the judgment of Division Bench of High Court whereby Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated February 7, 2017 of the Single Bench and impugned order No.868-GAD dated June 30, 2015 regarding the compulsory retirement of KAS officer Bhumesh Sharma were quashed.
After hearing counsels for the J&K Government and respondent (Bhumesh Sharma), a bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice C T Ravikumar observed, “we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed”.
The Division Bench of the J&K High Court had observed, “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”, adding “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 of its own that the writ petitioner can be subjected to compulsory retirement in the interest of the institution”.
“Admittedly, a perusal of the file as well as the record clearly reveals that compulsory retiring the writ petitioner (Bhumesh Sharma) from service was based on no material, in as much as the writ respondent even did not conduct any departmental inquiry with respect to the act of alleged misconduct on the part of writ petitioner”, the DB had mentioned in the judgment.
“Further, his APRs from the years 2001-2002 till 2013-2014 have either been good or outstanding, more so the Single Judge had specifically opined that a perusal of the APRs of writ petitioner clearly reveals that no departmental inquiry was pending against him meaning thereby the writ petitioner had a satisfactory employment record”, the DB had observed, adding “the State has failed to explain why the Vigilance Department gave clearance to the writ petitioner and why he was selected to the Kashmir Administrative Service in the year 2010 when he has done the act of alleged misconduct and his performance as an officer was not up to the mark”.
“Even the writ petitioner has specifically claimed in the writ petition that the Transport Commissioner vide communication dated 11.07.2011 had recommended his name for gold medal for his honesty, integrity and meritorious service. In such a situation, the reputation of writ petitioner cannot be termed as doubtful, as projected, nor could his conduct be determined only on spoken words in the absence of any material on record, which was the fundamental flaw in the order issued against the petitioner compulsory retiring him from service”, the DB had further mentioned in the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel