Sweeping Allegations On 'Bad Reputation' Without Service Record Cannot Sustain Premature Retirement Order: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that a government servant cannot be prematurely retired merely on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations regarding his “bad reputation,” especially when such observations are not supported by any cogent material from the service record.

The Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar upheld the writ court's decision quashing the order of premature retirement.

The Court examined the record placed before it and found that the only material considered by the Screening Committee and the competent authority was the employee's involvement in an FIR.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab v. Surya Kant (2022), the Court reiterated that mere involvement in a criminal case does not establish guilt and, by itself, cannot justify depriving a person of his livelihood.

While criminal involvement may constitute a relevant factor, it cannot be the sole basis for compulsory or premature retirement without a broader assessment of the employee's service profile.

The High Court noted that although the Screening Committee recorded that the employee did not enjoy a good public reputation and was perceived as corrupt, these observations were not backed by any material from the service record.

The Committee failed to examine the employee's service book, Annual Performance Reports, or obtain inputs from officers under whom he had served. The Court emphasized that assessment of reputation must be based on tangible service-related material and not on sweeping statements or subjective perceptions.

It was further held that the competent authority had mechanically accepted the recommendations of the Screening Committee without independent application of mind. Such an approach, the Court observed, vitiates the decision-making process and renders the retirement order unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, finding no illegality or infirmity in the writ court's judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the quashing of the premature retirement order. The Court also directed compliance with the writ court's judgment within a stipulated period, observing that non-compliance during the pendency of the restored appeal could not, at that stage, be treated as wilful contempt.

Case-Title: State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Ahsan-ul-Haq Khan, 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order