Premature Retirement Cannot Be Used As Shortcut To Bypass Regular Enquiry; Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Establish Guilt: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that premature retirement cannot be resorted to as a substitute for a regular disciplinary enquiry, and that mere involvement of a government servant in a criminal case, without supporting material, cannot form the sole basis for compulsory retirement in public interest.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that premature retirement cannot be used as a shortcut to dispense with a regular enquiry, and that suspicion, conjecture or general reputation unsupported by cogent material cannot justify compulsory retirement of a government servant.
The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal filed by the State challenging a judgment of the Writ Court which had quashed the premature retirement of a government employee and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, while relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M.S. Bindra v. Union of India, (1998), reiterated: “premature retirement cannot be used as a shortcut to dispense with a regular inquiry; mere involvement in a criminal case does not establish guilt; suspicion, conjecture or general reputation unsupported by material cannot form the basis of compulsory retirement; and failure to follow self-imposed guidelines amounts to malice in law.”
Background
The respondent was appointed as a Sectional Officer (later redesignated as Junior Engineer) in the Roads & Buildings Department and served in various capacities over a long tenure. During his service, he was implicated in a vigilance case registered under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act and the Ranbir Penal Code, pursuant to which he was placed under suspension.
According to the respondent, the allegations were false and unsupported by material, and the investigation itself revealed that the tainted currency was not recovered from his possession. He was subsequently reinstated by the Government and continued to serve in different postings.
Thereafter, the respondent was served with an order of premature retirement under Regulation 226(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, purportedly in public interest. Aggrieved, he approached the Writ Court contending that the order was based solely on his involvement in a criminal case and that his entire service record had not been considered.
The Writ Court allowed the petition, holding that the order of premature retirement was not supported by material and directing reinstatement. The State assailed the said judgment before the Division Bench.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench noted that the power of premature retirement under Regulation 226(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Regulations is to be exercised only upon formation of a bona fide opinion that such retirement is in public interest, and that such opinion must be based on consideration of the entire service record of the employee.
The Court observed that the governing executive instructions require the Screening Committee to examine all relevant material, including Annual Performance Reports, disciplinary history, vigilance inputs, audit paras and other service-related records, before recommending premature retirement.
Placing reliance on settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, including in M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, the Court reiterated that premature retirement cannot be used as a shortcut to dispense with a regular disciplinary enquiry. It was emphasised that mere involvement in a criminal case does not establish guilt and that suspicion or conjecture, unsupported by material, cannot form the basis of compulsory retirement.
The Bench further noted that in the present case, the only material relied upon by the Screening Committee and the competent authority was the registration of a single FIR. No attempt had been made to examine the respondent’s service record, and even though the Annual Performance Reports were stated to be unavailable, the service book had not been scrutinised to assess his overall conduct and performance during his long tenure.
The Court found that the observation of the Screening Committee regarding the respondent’s alleged bad reputation was unsupported by any cogent material emanating from the service record. It held that sweeping statements based on perception, without substantiating material, are insufficient to ruin the reputation and livelihood of a government servant.
The Bench also held that the competent authority had mechanically accepted the recommendations of the Screening Committee without independent application of mind, thereby vitiating the decision-making process.
Reiterating the limited scope of judicial review in matters of premature retirement, the Court observed that interference is warranted where the decision is shown to be arbitrary, based on no evidence, or where relevant material has been ignored, and extraneous considerations have crept in.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the order of premature retirement was founded solely on the respondent’s involvement in a criminal case, without any supporting material from his service record, and was therefore unsustainable in law. It held that the Writ Court had committed no illegality in quashing the impugned order and directing reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Accordingly, the intra-court appeal filed by the State was dismissed, and the judgment of the Writ Court was upheld.
Cause Title: State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Ahsan-ul-Haq Khan
Appearances
Appellants: Hakim Aman Ali, Deputy Advocate General, with Mohd. Younis Hafiz, Assisting Counsel
Respondent: Azhar Ul Amin, Senior Advocate, with Numan Shafi, Advocate
