Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Aug 25: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey has dismissed the LPA filed by the State against the judgment of writ court whereby premature retirement of Dr Riaz was quashed.
After carefully examining the impugned judgment, the DB observed, “the Single Judge has elaborately examined the recommendations made by the committee and every allegation contained therein in the context of the record produced before it and has come to definite findings”.
“This is a case where the allegations forming the sheet-anchor of the order of compulsory retirement have been found to be not only controverted but proven false. Apart from that, no ACRs had been placed before the committee and no such material was produced either before the Single Judge or this court”, the DB said, adding “the file produced before this court is bereft of any such record. As such, this court can, at best, say that there has been no material placed before the committee to enable it to back the recommendations as are actually contained in the report/recommendation produced before the court”.
“In that view, the very premise and foundation of the recommendations that the respondent’s integrity was doubtful, does not withstand the scrutiny of law. Consequently, the recommendation would not stand and resultantly, the action taken thereon would equally be rendered baseless and unfounded”, the DB said.
“Government can compulsorily retire an employee, if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. So, the sole ground on which a Government servant can be compulsorily retired is the opinion of the Government that it is in public interest to do so”, the DB said.
“We have already mentioned the object of the relevant provision of the CSRs. We have also observed that in the instant case the compulsory retirement of the respondent, writ-petitioner, has been ordered on the ground of doubtful integrity. This is not a case where the allegation is that he had turned in-efficient and was, therefore, deadwood. No exception can be taken to the principle that compulsory retirement neither carries a stigma nor is punitive in nature”, DB said.
Earlier, Advocate General argued that in terms of the provision of Article 226(2) CSRs, if the Government is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, it has the power to require any Government servant to retire.
“Once the Government forms such a bona fide opinion, its correctness is not open to challenge”, he said, adding “recourse to the provision is permissible to chop off dead wood and that it is neither a punitive action nor entails any civil consequences or stigma. Principles of natural justice or of Article 311(2) are not attracted in such a case”.
Dr Riaz’s counsel Altaf Haqani in rebuttal of AG’s arguments submitted that the committee, while considering the case of the petitioner, did not abide by the criteria governing the subject. He submitted that there was no service record of the petitioner, his ACRs or any material placed before the committee to enable it to take a decision.
Follow our WhatsApp channel