Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 24: In a major set-back to the State in the compulsory retirement cases, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Sanjeev Kumar has dismissed the appeals of State against the judgment of writ court whereby premature retirement of Assistant Director CAPD T P Singh and Naib Tehsildar Fida Hussain was quashed.
After hearing both the sides, the DB observed, “from the perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the committee, which recommended compulsory retirement of the respondents, it is abundantly clear that decision was taken in view of the registration of FIRs by the Vigilance Organization”, adding “apart from FIRs, no other record was either placed before the committee or the competent authority”.
“The Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the respondents, which have been placed on record by way of annexures to the writ petitions by the respondents, were also not considered”, the DB further observed, adding “as a matter of fact the committee has stated that it was reported by the departments concerned that ACRs of the respondents were not available. There is, however, two line statement in the minutes of the meeting of the committee upon which much stress was laid by the counsel for the appellants”.
“The two line statement reads: “Through their consistent conduct over a period of time, the employees do not enjoy good reputation in the public”, the DB pointed out.
“The perusal of the record and similar statements in the cases of all employees, who were recommended by the committee and were ultimately compulsorily retired, reveal that there is no material available with the committee or before the competent authority to come to such a conclusion”, the DB said, adding “moreover, there is not any indication in the minutes of the meeting of the committee as to how it arrived at the opinion”.
Division Bench further observed, “counsel for the State relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Versus ME Reddy and Another and Nawal Singh Versus State of UP and Another besides Suryakant Chunilal Shah’s case and canvassed that the judgment passed by this court in Abdul Majid’s case needs a re-look”.
After going through the judgments cited by the counsel for the State, the DB said, “we are of the opinion that the issues, which the appellants have raised in the appeals, have been elaborately considered and dealt with in the case of Abdul Majid’s case. We do not find that the law laid down by this court in Abdul Majid’s case is in any way in conflict with the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellants and there is no dispute that the cases at hand are virtually identical to the case of Abdul Majid”.
Stating that judgment passed in Abdul Majid’s case applies on all fours to the instant cases, the DB said, “judgment of the Single Judge, impugned in these appeals, does not call for any interference and the same is, therefore, upheld”.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel