Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Cannot Be Sole Basis For Premature Retirement; Service Record Must Be Examined: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that while involvement in a criminal case may be a relevant factor for determining the continued utility of a government servant, it cannot be the sole basis for their premature retirement.In a judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, the court underscored the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of the officer's entire service record, including performance, integrity, and effectiveness, before a decision on premature retirement is made.The bench further referenced State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 to reiterate, … merely because a person is shown to have been involved in a criminal case would not per se mean that he was guilty of having committed that offence, and that the guilt would necessarily have to be established in the trial….before a person is tried by the competent court of law and is served justice, it would be improper to deprive him of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement”Background:The petitioner Ahmasn Ul Haq Khan was appointed as a Sectional Officer (now Junior Engineer) in the R&B Department in 1982 and worked in various capacities. In 2011 he was suspended following his involvement in an FIR which alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, during the investigation, it was revealed that the phenolphthalein-dipped currency notes used in the trap were not under his control, and the person who received them was someone else. Despite these revelations, Khan was implicated in the case based on hearsay evidence.In 2015, after the investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, Khan was reinstated into service. However, in November 2016, the government issued an order for his premature retirement, citing his involvement in the criminal case as grounds for his retirement, claiming that his continued service was not in the public interest. This decision was challenged by Khan, who contended that his entire service record had not been reviewed, and that the premature retirement order was arbitrary and lacked valid justification. His petition was allowed by the writ court prompting the State to appeal before the Division Bench. Court's Analysis and Observations:The Court began by examining the law governing premature retirement, emphasizing that such decisions are based on the government's subjective satisfaction. However, the Court noted that this satisfaction must be based on cogent material, and that the power for premature retirement is not to be exercised arbitrarily or as a shortcut to avoid disciplinary proceedings.One of the Court's key observations was that mere involvement in a criminal case does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the government servant has outlived their utility or is no longer fit to serve. The Bench emphasized, “The involvement of a government servant in a criminal case may not be the sole basis for premature retirement; however, it undoubtedly constitutes relevant material for arriving at satisfaction with regard to the continuous utility of the officer in government service.”Further, the Court expressed concern over the lack of a comprehensive review of the respondent's service record. The Bench observed, “The decision for premature retirement should not rest on isolated incidents, such as involvement in a criminal case, but must take into account the entirety of the employee's service history. The competent authority must assess the officer's performance, integrity, and the quality of their contributions over the years.”The Court also pointed out that the screening committee, which had recommended the premature retirement of Khan, failed to thoroughly review his entire service record. The committee did not take into account his reinstatement in 2015 or his performance in the years following. Additionally, the Court noted the absence of any reference to the petitioner's Annual Performance Reports (APRs), which are crucial for assessing the competence and effectiveness of a government servant.“The screening committee's assessment was based solely on the FIR and the involvement of the respondent in the criminal case. There was no comprehensive review of his service record, and the APRs, which could have provided valuable insights into his performance, were not available for consideration”, the court remarked. The Court further noted, “A sweeping statement about the respondent's reputation, without any supporting evidence from his service record, is insufficient to justify such a drastic action. The law mandates that the employee's entire service record, including feedback from supervisors and peers, be considered when making such a critical decision.”In addition to the lack of review, the Court expressed concerns about the basis on which the government concluded that Khan's reputation was detrimental to public interest. The Court emphasized that such assessments...

Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Cannot Be Sole Basis For Premature Retirement; Service Record Must Be Examined: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags