Service Law:
Compulsory retirement – Justifiability of – Respondent official compulsorily retired by State in terms of Art. 226(2) of Service Regulations – On the basis of registration of an FIR alleging demand and acceptance of bribe – Challenged by filing writ petition – Single Judge of High Court allowed the petition, holding that the decision to compulsorily retire the Respondent was taken merely on basis of FIR without taking into account APRs of Respondent and further norms for arriving at decision with regard to integrity of Respondent were not followed – Order of Single Judge confirmed by Division Bench of High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent was never caught red-handed while accepting bribe but the Division Bench considered the matters on that premise, which was incorrect – The matter was also not considered from the perspective of Clause (iv) of Art. 226(2) of Service Regulations – Therefore, matters remitted to High Court for consideration afresh – Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations – Art. 226 (2).
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matters to High Court, the Court
HELD : 1. In the present cases the concerned respondent official was never caught red handed while accepting bribe. However, observations which are identical in all three matters indicate that the Division Bench considered the matters from that premise. The basic foundation was thus incorrect. The matter from the perspective of Clause (iv) of Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Service Regulations was also not considered. The orders of sanction in all these three matters highlight the acts of commission and omission on part of the concerned respondents as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and public interest was compromised. [Para 15] [11-B-D]
2. Thus, the basic premise, on the basis of which the matter was considered by the Division Bench of High Court was incorrect and secondly, the matter was also not considered from the perspective of Clause (iv) of Article 226(2). Therefore, the judgments and orders under appeal passed by the Division Bench are set aside. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench for fresh consideration. [Para 16] [11-E-F]
State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 293 ; Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another (1992) 2 SCC
299 : [1992] 1 SCR 836 ; M/s. Rup Diamonds and Others v. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 356 : [1989] 1 SCR 13 ; Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India and another (1989) 4 SCC 187 : [1989] 3 SCR 488 ; Narayan Chowedhury and Others v. Union of India and Others (1996) 7 SCC
1 : 1995 [6] Suppl. SCR 178 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.