Mere FIR against employee cannot form basis of compulsory retirement: HC - watsupptoday.com
Mere FIR against employee cannot form basis of compulsory retirement: HC
Posted 02 Jan 2018 02:44 PM

Agencies
While quashing the compulsorily retirement of Hammid Wani, Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu, Justice M.K Hanjura observed that merely that a case or cases have been registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance Organisation cannot form the basis of retiring him compulsorily and directed respondents to reinstate the petitioner and to grant him all consequential benefits, within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is served on them by the petitioner.



Justice M.K Hanjura observed that looking at the instant case from the above perspective, an important facet which cannot be lost sight of, is that the Committee has given a complete goby to the Regulation 226(2) of the J&K CSR read with the instructions (provided hereinbefore) buttressed to it in considering his compulsory retirement. These lay great emphasis and spell out the need and demand to consider 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. To say that an FIR can form the sole basis to retire a public servant compulsorily is neither in tune nor in line with the scheme and mandate of Article 226(2) of the J&K CSR read with the guidelines supra and the judicial pronouncements holding the ground.

Justice MK Hanjura further observed that the facts in the present case are eloquent. “The petitioner has appended with the writ petition ‘Annual Performance Reports’ wherein and where under his achievements, from time to time, have been judged/ evaluated by his superiors. For the year 2004-2005, the petitioner has been rated as an outstanding officer, backbone of the Town Planning Organisation reported by the initiating authority. Same is true qua the ‘Annual Performance Reports’ of the petitioner for the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, March 2008, March 2009, March 2010 and ‘Annual Performance Reports’ have been shelved. These have escaped the scrutiny of the Committee. It appears to have been done with an ultimate aim of showing the petitioner the exit and, had these ‘Annual Performance Reports’, been considered, the conclusion would have been otherwise”, the court observed.

Leave a comment: (Your email will not be published)