HC quash premature retirement of JE PHE

gy correspondent Jammu sept 19
[ September 20, 2017 ] Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir of J&K High Coury set-aside the Order impugned bearing No.906-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 whereby Parvez Ahmad Shah, Junior Engineer, PHE Division, Bandipora had been prematured retired and directed State to re-instated him forthwith and shall be paid all consequential service benefits. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir observed that noticing the importance of APRs, AAG was asked to produce the record of the Screening Committee so as to show on what basis they have formed opinion for recommending premature retirement of the petitioner. He has produced the photocopy of the record. In the record so produced what has been shown "the APRs were not available". How the Screening Committee has formed opinion that in view of consistent conduct over a period of time, petitioner does not enjoy a good reputation in the public, is absolutely perverse. There is no supporting material for the same. Instead APRs for the period 2009 till 2015 present, a rosy picture, of the service record of the petitioner which has been totally ignored to the detriment and disadvantage of the petitioner. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir observed that the criminal cases are registered against number of officers/officials of the department. If it will be only yardstick for dealing with such officers/officials, then all such officers/officials will be prematurely retired. Applying the law as referred above, the nature of circumstances and the nature of the offences, then alleged commission of offences in the year 2009 and 2010 was to be looked into in the context of action proposed in the year 2015 which has not been done and two cases have been registered against the petitioner, one FIR No.21/2009 P/S VOK and another FIR No.23/2010. Regarding FIR No.21/2009, Government has granted sanction for prosecution in the year 2013, as such, petitioner is facing trial for the same. In 2013 what is allegation against the petitioner is that he was a Junior Engineer but acted as a Technical Officer. In that capacity he had signed the papers and in the process allegedly some NITs were issued and in execution of works, loss has been caused to the State exchequer. The case is under trial. Regarding 2nd case, sanction for prosecution as yet has not been granted. High Court further held that 23. Allegations in the two criminal cases registered in the year 2009 and 2010 were to be read together with the entire service record, more particularly the APRs for the period 2009 to 2015 which has not been done. In isolation of the service records, on the basis of the two criminal cases registered in the year 2009 and 2010, petitioner is retired in the year 2015, same is inconsistent with the norms adopted for premature retirement. With these observations Court set-aside the order of premature retirment and directed state to reinstate him forthwith.