Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 6: Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Justice Anil R Dave has quashed the Jammu and Kashmir Government order dated April 26, 2005 whereby Rajesh Gupta, the then Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Work, Kathua was forcibly retired from the Government service for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
Soon after the Government ordered premature retirement of Rajesh Gupta, he challenged the same before the Single Judge and Division Bench of State High Court respectively but failed to get any reprieve. Thereafter, he knocked the doors of the Supreme Court.
“The affidavit filed on behalf of J&K Government clearly shows that according to the Vigilance Organization three FIRs bearing Nos. 49/91, 11/95 and 63/94 were registered against the appellant when he was posted as Executive Engineer (REW Kathua) and upon investigation, all the FIRs were found to be not proved”, the SC bench observed after hearing counsels for the appellant and the J&K Government counsel.
“However, recommendation was made to initiate departmental action against the officer. Inspite of the recommendation, it has not been disputed before us, that no departmental action was ever initiated against the appellant. In fact, after the completion of the investigation into the FIRs, the appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there was no material before the High Powered Committee to conclude that the officer possessed assets beyond his known source of income”, the Supreme Court bench said.
“It has been noticed by us earlier that the appellant was required, in the performance of his official duties, to recommend the sanctioning of technical approval to the construction of works of various projects. The allegation with regard to issuing back dated technical sanctions was duly inquired into. The conclusion ultimately reached by inquiry officer noticed in the earlier part of the order indicates that at best the appellant acted in a casual and haphazard manner in the maintenance of records. Such negligence on the part of the appellant cannot per se lead to the conclusion that the appellant was acting in such a manner with an ulterior motive”, the Supreme Court said.
“The conclusions reached by the High Powered Committee also do not co-relate to the assessment of work and integrity of the appellant in the annual performance report. As noticed earlier, in all the annual performance reports, the officer has been rated very good, excellent and even outstanding”, SC observed, adding “the conclusion is inescapable that the order passed by the State Government suffers from vice of arbitrariness. The High Court erred in arriving at conclusions which were not borne out by the record produced before the High court. In view of the settled law, it is not possible for us to uphold the judgments of the Single Judge as also of the Division Bench”.
With these observations, Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order relating to premature retirement of appellant. As the appellant has still not reached the age of superannuation, the Supreme Court issued directions for his reinstated in service. “The appellant shall be paid 30% of the backwages from the date of order of premature retirement till reinstatement. He shall not be entitled to any interest on the backwages”, the Supreme Court said and directed that order shall be implemented within a period of four weeks.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel