Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Nov 16: The State High Court today quashed the retirement order of Mohammad Yousuf Bhat, who was compulsorily retired from his service along with 60 other employees after they were declared as deadwood.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey declared his retirement order as unsustainable and unsound in the eyes of law and directed the Government to treat Bhat in service till his actual date of retirement.
“The respondents are directed to treat him to have continued in service till the date he attained the actual age of superannuation. Consequently the petitioner would be entitled to and paid all the dues and service benefits for the period he has remained out of service pursuant to the impugned order till the date he actually attained his age of superannuation”, Justice Magrey directed.
Justice Magrey while setting aside the Government order held the authorities have not examined the entire service record of the petitioner, which include his Annual Progress Reports (APRs) and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
“This court has also found it and come to the conclusion that the committee has not considered the entire record of service of the petitioner and there is not even a single adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs of the petitioner and made some incorrect statements in their recommendations concerning the availability of the ACRs of the petitioner”, reads the judgment
Bhat who was posted as Secretary, State Commission for Women, when Government retired him compulsorily, for allegedly indulging in corruption and embezzlement. Immediately after issuance of the order, he challenged it on the ground that there are mala fides in the order and sought quashing it before the court.
Bhat, who was appointed in the year 1990 on a gazetted post in the Social Welfare Department was inducted into Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS) in the year 2003 and has served in departments like SWD, H&UDD, CEO of may authorities like Kokernag Development Authority, Sonamarg Develo-pment Authority, Pahalgam Development Authority etc was prematurely retired from services along with other employees as all these were declared as deadwood last year by the Government of the then Chief Minister late Mufti Mohammad Sayeed.
State while opposing the prayer of Bhat pleaded in its objections that he in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner Development, Anantnag was found to have released funds on pick and choose basis and without ascertaining whether the works against which the amount was released were executed or not. It was also the stand of Government that the petitioner is involved in two FIRs under corruption and criminal conspiracy registered in police station VOK and prosecution was recommended against the petitioner.
On the other hand, the petitioner alleged that his compulsory retirement was ordered at the behest of extraneous and malafide considerations and is politically motivated on account of his functioning as CEO Pahalgam Development Authority.
“The petitioner demolished 113 illegal structures and it annoyed number of hoteliers, businessmen, top bureaucrats, police officers, politicians and land mafia brokers and local MLA accompanied by a group of land mafia attacked him in his office and the said MLA moved a privilege motion against the petitioner before the State Assembly”, submitted Bhat before the court.
Court in this connection observed that there may be all the truth but it is difficult for the court to return a finding about the ground of malafide as alleged because any of the authorities against whom allegation has been raised as these authorities have not been made party in the instant petition. “However, the court has come to a definite finding that the impugned order cannot be sustained on account of it being arbitrary”, Justice Magrey recorded in judgment.
With regard to the registration of FIRs against Bhat, the court held that involvement in criminal cases does not mean that he is guilty as he is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth is yet to be ascertained by the court. “It would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement as in the instant case trial has not at all commenced and the petitioner has not yet been proven guilty”, court said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel