|Early Times Report|
JAMMU, Nov 24: A Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising of Justice Badar Durez Ahmed (Chief Justice) and Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated 22.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in SWP No.2029/2015 whereby respondent-writ petitioner had been ordered to be compulsorily retired w.e.f. 01.07.2015, was quashed.
The brief facts of the case were: The respondent came to be appointed as Patwari in the revenue department of the State Government in the year 1991. 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 the year 2003, when the respondent was working as Patwari, an FIR being FIR No.23/2003 came to be registered by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, which, upon investigation culminated into presentation of challan before the Court of Special Judge Anti-corruption, Jammu. The respondent faced the trial, but was ultimately acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Thereafter another FIR being FIR No.27/2011 came to be registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu against the respondent and in the investigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization, same was concluded as proved. The respondent was yet booked in another FIR No.09/2014 by the Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu, the investigation whereof was stated to be under progress. The appellants by taking note of the two FIRs registered against the respondent, i.e., FIR Nos.27/2011 and 9/2014, 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.
DB after hearing the Learned counsels observed that decision to compulsorily retire the respondent was taken in view of the registration of two FIRs, i.e., FIR Nos.27/2011 and 9/2014 by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu. Apart from the aforesaid material viz. FIRs, no other record was either placed before the Committee or the Competent Authority nor the same was considered. The Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the respondent, which have been placed on record by way of annexures to the writ petition by the respondent, were also not considered.
DB upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the judgment, impugned in this appeal, does not call for any interference, therefore the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.