Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 27: A division bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Puneet Gupta while dismissing LPA filed by Govt, held that respondent can not be prematurely retired solely by reason of the fact of registration of the two FIRs in which petitioner is one of the accused.
This significant order has been passed in LPA by the State of J&K (now Union Territory) filed against the judgment and passed by Single Judge of this Court whereby the respondent’s writ petition, challenging his compulsory retirement order from Government service, issued by the appellants, has been allowed quashing the order impugned therein with direction to the appellants to reinstate the respondent-writ petitioner and grant him all consequential benefits within the period specified therein.
The DB while upholding the judgment of Writ Court whereby the Court quashed the premature retirement of Divisional Manager Forest Reyaz Anwar Masoodi, observed that the fundamental principles are that the order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and that the Government shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter.
It hardly needs to be stated that subjective satisfaction is not to be arrived on the basis of imagination, but should be reached at on the basis of material which satisfies a rational mind. The material has to be the entire service record, especially the APRs,” it said. It is to be borne in mind that order No.GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010 was not only meant to screen the undesirable employees, but its express object was also to encourage the honest employees; meaning thereby that the factors would and could be used positively or negatively in favour or against an employee. In that sense, these factors in favour of the respondent had to be taken into account by the Screening Committee, but that has not been done.
The Court has already recorded a finding that the Screening Committee has not taken into account the APRs of the respondents. It is not only the finding of the Court, but is admitted by the appellants without mincing any words.
Once the Screening Committee has omitted to take into account the tangible evidence in the shape of APRs, it cannot be expected of them to have taken into account the aforesaid intangible but crucial factors. The Court has no option, therefore, available to it but to come to the conclusion that the report/opinion of the Screening Committee suffers from vice of non-application of mind and is, accordingly, rendered unreasonable and arbitrary. Consequentially, the Government order is rendered arbitrary.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
