Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Hammid Ahmad Wani on 2 July, 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5151 of 2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No.13743/2019)
THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANR. ………. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HAMMID AHMAD WANI & ORS. …………. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A.No.5158/2019 @ SLP (C) No.14378/2019 @ D.No.11237 of 2019
AND
C.A.No.5157/2019 @ SLP (C) No.14375/2019 @ D.No.11431 of 2019
O R D E R
C.A.No.5151 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No.13743/2019 Leave granted.
The respondent was working as Assistant Town Planner in Town Planning Organisation, Kashmir. He was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 01.06.2015 in exercise of the powers under Article 226(2) Signature Not Verified of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations by an Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2019.07.04 15:05:32 IST Reason: order dated 30.6.2015. The basis for the said order was that a criminal case was pending against the respondent 2 for offences under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120-B, 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The respondent challenged the order of compulsory retirement before the High Court by filing a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in appeal. On a perusal of the material on record, the High Court was of the opinion that the order of compulsory retirement was passed contrary to Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations and the judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah reported in 1999 1 SCC 529.
The High Court was of the opinion that mere pendency of a criminal case would not enable the authorities to pass an order of compulsory retirement without examining the entire service record. Mr.M.Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jammu and Kashmir submitted that the judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah was not properly appreciated by the High Court. He urged that this Court held in the above judgment that the question whether involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the offence committed by the employee. He took us through the order 3 of compulsory retirement which is an innocuous order. He also showed us the report dated 26.6.2015 of the High Powered Committee in which it was mentioned that the assessment of his conduct over a period of time showed the employee does not enjoy a good reputation in the public. There was also an observation regarding the respondent abusing his official position in the Town Planning Organisation. It was further mentioned in the order that the Annual confidential Reports of the officer were not available.
Mr.M. Shoeb Alam, learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 2.5.2019 in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors Vs. Farid Ahmad Tak. In a similar fact situation, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. In the said judgment, this Court was of the view that the High Court adjudicate the matter in the light of Article 226(2) of the Regulations.
We are informed by Mr. Riyaaz A. Jaan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that the FIR that was registered against the respondent has since been quashed. We are also informed that some SLPs filed against the judgments of the High Court in identical matters have been dismissed in limine.
On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the High Court 4 does not warrant interference. However, the impugned judgment shall not preclude the State Government in taking suitable steps to pass an order of compulsory retirement on the basis of fresh assessment of the entire service record and other relevant material.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
C.A.No.5158 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No.14378 of 2019 @ D.No.11237 of 2019 and C.A.No.5157 of 2019 @ SLP (C)No.14375 of 2019 @ D.No.11431 of 2019.
In view of the order passed today in C.A.No.5151 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No.13743/2019, these appeals are also stand disposed of.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
....................J (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ....................J (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI;
2nd JULY, 2019
5
ITEM NOs.3 + 5 + 56 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13743/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-08-2018 in LPASW No.109/2018 passed by the High Court Of Jammu&kashmir At Srinagar) THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS HAMMID AHMAD WANI & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment) WITH Item No.5:
D.No.11237 OF 2019 (With appln for c/delay in filing and refiling SLP) And Item No.56:
D.No.11431 OF 2019 (With appln for c/delay in filing and refiling SLP, exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment) Date : 02-07-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Gautam Prabhakar,Adv.
Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Riyaaz A. Jaan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas,Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain,Adv.6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(B.Parvathi) (Sunil Kumar Rajvanshi) Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file) 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5151 of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No.13743/2019) THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANR. ………. Appellant(s) VERSUS HAMMID AHMAD WANI & ORS. …………. Respondent(s) WITH C.A........2019 @ SLP (C) No......2019 @ D.No.11237 of 2019 AND C.A........2019 @ SLP (C) No......2019 @ D.No.11431 of 2019 O R D E R C.A........2019 @ SLP (C) No.13743/2019 Leave granted.
The respondent was working as a Assistant Town Planner in Town Planning Organisation, Kashmir. He was compulsorily retired from service on 30.6.2015 in exercise of the powers under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations by an order dated 30.6.2015. The basis for the said order was that a 8 criminal case was pending against the respondent for offences under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B, 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The respondent challenged the order of compulsory retirement before the High Court by filing a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in appeal. On a perusal of the material on record, the High Court was of the opinion that the order of compulsory retirement was passed contrary to Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations and a judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah reported in 1999 1 SCC 529.
The High Court was of the opinion that mere pendency of a criminal case would not enable the authorities to pass an order of compulsory retirement without examining the entire service record. Mr.M.Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jammu and Kashmir submits that the judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah was not properly appreciated by the High Court. He submitted that this Court in the above judgment held that mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the offence 9 committed by the employee. He took us through the order of compulsory retirement which is an innocuous order. He also showed us the report dated 26.6.2015 of the High Powered Committee in which it was mentioned that through his consistent conduct over a period of time, the employee does not enjoy a good reputation in the public. There was also observations regarding abusing his official position in Town Planning Organisation, Kashmir. It was further mentioned in the order that the Annual confidential Reports of the officer are not available.
Mr.M. Shoeb Alam, learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 2.5.2019 in which State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors Vs. Farid Ahmad Tak, in a similar fact situation, wherein this Court has set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. In the said judgment, this Court was of the view that the High Court did not decide the matter in the light of Article 226(2) of the Regulations.
We are informed by Mr. Riyaaz A. Jaan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that the FIR that was registered against the respondent has since been quashed. We are also informed that some of the SLPs filed against similar issue have been dismissed in limine. After consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the High Court does 10 not warrant interference. However, if the State Government is satisfied on the basis of the service record and other material which is available against the respondent, they are free to pass an order of compulsory retirement and the impugned judgment will not stand in their way.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
C.A.......2019 @ SLP (C) No......2019 @ D.No.11237 of 2019 and C.A.......2019 @ SLP (C)No......2019 @ D.No.11431 of 2019.
In view of the order passed today in C.A........2019 @ SLP (C) No.13743/2019, these appeals also stand disposed of.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
....................J (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ....................J (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI;
2nd JULY, 2019
11
ITEM NOs.3 + 5 + 56 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13743/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-08-2018 in LPASW No.109/2018 passed by the High Court Of Jammu&kashmir At Srinagar) THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS HAMMID AHMAD WANI & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment) WITH Item No.5:
D.No.11237 OF 2019 And Item No.56:
D.No.11431 OF 2019 Date : 02-07-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Gautam Prabhakar,Adv.
Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Riyaaz A. Jaan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas,Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 12 (B.Parvathi) (Sunil Kumar Rajvanshi) Court Master Court Master