Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Mar 27: Observing that mere registration of case against an employee cannot form the basis of retiring him from services, the High Court today quashed such order and directed the Government to reinstate the petitioner to his services.
“…As a corollary to which, the impugned order bearing No. 865-GAD of 2015 dated 30th of June, 2015, is quashed. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and grant him all the consequential benefits, within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is served on them by the petitioner”, Justice M K Hanjura directed.
It is well settled, Court said, that a person accused of an offence is presumed to be innocent, unless and until his guilt has been proved but the State has applied this principle in the reverse, perhaps, labouring under the belief that the maxim of law is that every person is presumed to be guilty, unless and until he proves his innocence.
“It is only on the culmination of the trial that, if the charges are proved against the accused and, as a consequence thereto, he is convicted and sentenced, that such an opinion can be framed”, read the judgment.
Abdul Rashid Bhat, who was serving as Joint Registrar, Handicraft Department, at the time of his compulsory retirement from the services had challenged the Government order.
The State Counsel argued before the court that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked by a public servant in the aid of assailing an order of compulsory retirement and that such an order does not amount to a punishment, is based on the sound principles and cannons of law.
Such an argument is devoid of merit, Court said, and does not have the legs to stand upon. Court has held that this kind of order cannot stand the test of law and reason as the same is not based on any material from which a reasonable opinion could be derived to put forward the plea that the petitioner has outlived his utility as a Government servant or that his conduct was such that his continuance in service would be prejudicial to the public interest.
Court said the ‘Annual Performance Reports’ of the petitioner have been shelved and have escaped the scrutiny of the Committee. “It appears to have been done with the ultimate aim of showing the petitioner the exit and, had these ‘Annual Performance Reports’, been considered, the result would have been otherwise.”
Follow our WhatsApp channel