Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Oct 6: In another jolt to the State in the dead-wood case, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Sanjeev Kumar today dismissed the LPA filed by the State against the judgment of writ court whereby order of premature retirement of Patwari Abdul Majid Wani was quashed.
“Advocate General has submitted that registration of a case of corruption against the respondent and that, too, pursuant to a trap laid by the Vigilance Organization was sufficient material for the Government to formulate an opinion that it was not in public interest to permit the respondent to continue in service”, the DB observed.
“If this contention of the State is accepted then it would mean that whenever an employee is booked for commission of offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act pursuant to a trap laid, it would be presumed that the such public servant would be ultimately or at least invariably be convicted and thus would necessarily entail his dismissal”, the DB said, adding “had it been so, the rule making authority would have normally provided in the rule itself that if an employee is booked for a particular type of offence under specified circumstances, he would lose his appointment or that he could be presumed to be a person of doubtful integrity”.
“The contention of the Advocate General cannot be accepted as Regulation 226 (2) of CSR read with instructions appended thereto lay great emphasis on consideration of the whole service record of the public servant which may be available in different forms like APRs, service book, personal file containing complaints received against such public servant from time to time etc”, the DB said.
“Mere registration of an FIR is not proof of guilt which can only be established in a full-fledged trial to be held in a criminal court. The position would not be much different if the criminal case is registered pursuant to a trap laid by the Vigilance Organization or some other investigating agency. Therefore, the distinction sought to be drawn by the Advocate General relying on the Judgment of Suryakant Chunilal Shah’s case is neither supported by any logic nor the same is in consonance with the scheme of compulsory retirement”, the DB further said.
The DB said, “as held in the judgments, the compulsory retirement cannot be resorted to as a punitive measure and as a substitute for a regular departmental enquiry or criminal prosecution. If such a decision is taken on the basis of mere registration of a case, may be a trap case, ignoring the other service record of the public servant, the same would be vitiated on account of non-application of mind and also on account of being a decision taken for a collateral purpose’.
With these observations, Division Bench upheld the judgment of writ court and dismissed the appeal.
Follow our WhatsApp channel