news details |
|
|
| HC quashes impugned order, allows petition of forcible retiree | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 8: Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir allowed a petition filed by Girdawar Purshtom Singh, who was pre-maturely retired vide Govt order No 990-GAD of 2006 dated August 14, 2006 whereby the petitioner came to prematurely retired from service with effect from August 14, 2006 on the various grounds including the ground that the petitioner was Tehsil & District President of Patwar Association. A strike was called in the month of August for three days 10, 11 & 12 August 2006 which become the bone of the dispute and the superiors in order to punish the petitioner passed the impugned order. The impugned order came to be passed without considering the service record and the fact that he was promoted as Girdawar in the year 2005 virtually the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily without any evidence/application of mind and is the outcome of malice.
Committee was constituted to consider the cases of various officers/officials for premature retirement consisting of Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner Home, Commissioner-Secretary GAD, Comm-issioner-Secretary Law, ADG CID and Commis-sioner of Vigilance met and made the recommendations of premature retirement of 10 officers including the petitioner as per the report the allegations contained in the 18/2005 registered with P/S VOJ, the General reputation of the petitioner and the information gathered by the VOJ from cross section of public was considered. The committee's report nowhere indicates that the entire service record of the petitioner was examined. Thus the record produced by the respondent categorically indicates rather supports of the version of the petitioner that the committee has not consider his service record from the fact that he came to be promoted as Girdwar.
Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir approved for reporting judgment after hearing Sr. Adv AV Gupta with Adv Aditya Gupta for the petitioner whereas Sanjay Kakkar Deputy AG appeared for the state and also gone through the numbers of judgments of Supreme Court of India including the High Court of J&K observed that law laid down by the Apex Court and judgment of State High Court one can come to an inescapable conclusion that the relevant material was not before the committee. Thus it can be safely said that the impugned order came to be passed on no evidence. It is the duty of the Court to lift the veil and record the finding whether the order of compulsorily retirement is without jurisdiction, arbitrary and outcome of malice as held by the Apex Court in a case titled Ram Eqbal Sharma Vs State of Bihar. While going through the counter filed by the state and record, as produced by the respondents, there was nothing before the respondents to arrive at such a conclusion. Virtually the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily on no evidence and without application of mind. Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to curve out a case, accordingly petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. (JNF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
