news details |
|
|
| Compulsory retirement challenged | | HC upholds Govt. decision rightly declaring petitioner dead-wood | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Apr 23
Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court, today in a petition seeking quashment of Government order passed on December 9, 2003 whereby the petitioner Kapoor Chand has been compulsory retired from service, has held that petitioner has rightly been declared as a dead-wood and compulsorily retired from service attaining the age of 48 years is in accordance with Article 226 (2) and J&K CSR and the action of respondent in passing the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality.
The petitioner who was initially appointed as Salesman (Junior Assistant), while his posting as sales depot at Jawahar Nagar Rajouri, was placed under suspension on the charges of embezzlement in the year 1987,.a criminal challan u/s 420/409/467/468 RPC was presented in the Court of Sessions Judge Rajouri. The petitioner, however, was acquitted from the charges on November 21, 1994. The State respondent filed appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge Rajouri which was dismissed by the High Court on September 13, 1995. The respondents, however, proceeded on the administrative side and Government on October 18, 1996 appointed Commission of Enquiry to hold enquiry against the petitioner and one Jagdish Lal regarding the charges of embezzlement. The enquiry officer A Sidhu the Commissioner of Enquiry found that both of them have embezzled an amount of Rs 6, 30, 848 and Rs 3, 28, 980 respectively. A report in this regard was submitted before the State on September 29, 1997, the petitioner Kapoor Chand in the meanwhile came to be reinstated in service vide Govt order dated October 26, 1998, pending decision on his suspension period and further ordered that an amount of Rs 3000 shall be recovered per month from the salary of the petitioner. As the suspension period of petitioner was not being decided, petitioner filed a petition which was disposed off by the High Court on July 30, 2000 with a direction to respondent/authorities to decide the suspension period of the petitioner. As per the direction of the High Court the suspension period of petitioner was decided and he was treated on duty with effect from August 31, 1987 to October 25, 1998 but the arrears were adjusted towards the outstanding amount which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner.
In the counter filed by state through AAG BS Salathia submitted that a high level committee of senior officers headed by the Chief Secretary of the State was constituted vide Govt order dated June 10, 2003 to look into the matter regarding performance and reputation of officers/officials working in the different departments of the State Govt. The service record of the petitioner was also scrutinized and taking into consideration the performance of petitioner, compulsorily retired the petitioner from the service vide order dated December 9, 2003.
Justice Nirmal Singh after hearing Adv Vikram Singh appearing for the petitioner and AAG BS Salathia appearing for the State also perused the record and observed that petitioner was involved in an embezzlement case and was found to have misappropriated public exchequer to the tune of Rs 6, 30, 848 and Rs 3, 28, 980 in connivance with another employee of the department namely Jagdish Lal. The enquiry officer had recommended that an amount of Rs 6, 30, 848 be recovered from the salary of the petitioner and in pursuance to the said recommendation; an amount of Rs 3000 per month was being recovered from his salary. Therefore, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner was not having a doubtful integrity and that his performance was satisfactory. By no stretch of imagination, such a Govt employee can be said to have maintained efficiency and initiative in service, rather, such an act has committed by the petitioner is misconduct for which he has rightly been declared a dead-wood and compulsorily retired from service on attaining the age of 48 years which is an accordance with Article 226 (2) and J&K CSR and thus the action of the respondents in passing the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality and dismissed the petition. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
