STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, comprising Chief Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Sanjeev Kumar, on Thursday dismissed one more LPA in compulsory retirement and upheld the judgment of Writ Court.
The LPA had been filed by J&K State against the judgment of Writ Court over quashing the premature retirement of Girdawar Kuldip Kumar.
After hearing both the sides, the DB observed that the appellant was appointed as Patwari in the Revenue Department vide Order No. 01(GQ) of 2005 dated April 2, 2005. He was promoted as Girdawar in 2009 from where he was retired compulsorily in terms of the provisions of Regulation 226(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956.
It may be noted that in 2003, when he was working as Patwari, an FIR (21/2003) was registered by Vigilance Organization, Jammu, upon which investigation culminated into presentation of challan before the Court.
The appellants, by taking note of the aforesaid FIR, decided to compulsory retire the respondent by invoking powers conferred under Regulation 226(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Regulations and accordingly, the impugned order was passed.
The order was called in question by the respondent in SWP No.570/2005, which came to be allowed by the Single Judge in the judgment impugned in this appeal.
The DB further observed that after perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, which recommended compulsory retirement of the respondent, it is clear that decision to compulsorily retire the respondent was taken only in view of the registration of FIR 21/20003 by the State Vigilance Organisation, Jammu.
Apart from the aforesaid material viz. FIR, no other record was either placed before the Committee or the Competent Authority nor was the same considered.
As a matter of fact, the Committee has stated that it was reported by the Department that ACRs of the respondents were not available. There is, however, a two-line statement in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, upon which stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellants. The two-line statement reads thus, “As per information gathered from a cross section of the people, the reputation of the official is very bad.”
“The Division Bench further observed that the record and find similar statements in the cases of all employees, who were recommended by the Committee and were ultimately compulsorily retired. There is no material available with the Committee or before the Competent Authority to come to such a conclusion nor is there any indication in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee as to how it arrived at the aforesaid opinion. The information gathered from the so-called cross-section of the people also does not form part of the record, which was placed before the Committee”, with these observations, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
Using Laxmi Agarwal as lens to tell larger story on acid violence in India: Meghna Gulzar
I’m totally fine: Shahid Kapoor debunks reports of stomach cancer
Rani Mukerji’s next is ‘Mardaani 2’
ASTROLOGY: WEEKLY PREDICTIONS 09TH –– 15TH DECEMBER 2018
Do you have a narcissistic parent? Here’s how to know!
© 2017 State Times Daily Newspaper