Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Satish Chander Khajuria vs State Th.U.D.D.And Anr. on 15 July, 2016
Author: B. S. Walia
Bench: B. S. Walia
1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SWP No. 2220 /2015 MP Nos. 1 & 2/2015.
Date of Decision : 15.07.2016
______________________________________________________
Satish Chander Khajuria vs State of J&K & ors.
______________________________________________________
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. S. Walia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting : Yes.
______________________________________________________
Appearing counsel :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate.
For the
Respondents(s) : Mr. S.S.Nanda, Sr. AAG.
______________________________________________________ Judgment ;
1. Impugned in the instant writ petition is order Annexure Y dated June 30, 2015 whereby in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), the petitioner was retired from government service w.e.f. forenoon of July 1, 2015 by allowing him 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of 3 months notice on his having rendered 22 years of service.
2. Prayer is for quashing the aforementioned order as also for commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from the date he had been illegally retired from government service and to grant him all consequential benefits including salary, allowances, seniority etc. 2
3. Although not mentioned in the body of the writ petition, the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the A.P.R. Form is July 31, 1956. The writ petition also does not disclose the date and the post on which the petitioner joined service and starts with mention of the petitioner having been promoted to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer pursuant to his appointment in the Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) after his rendering considerable unblemished span of service. However, a perusal of APR at page No. 57 of the paper book reveals the date of continuous appointment to the post of C.E.O. w.e.f. 31.12.2003.
4. Averment has been made that the petitioners services were time and again commended by his superior officers and he was also given a cash award of Rs. 500/- by the Administrator, Jammu Municipality, Jammu vide order Annexure A dated September 30, 2002 for work done with regard to removal of defacement of property during the election campaign. By referring to Annexure B dated May 28, 2015 it has been averred that the Director Urban Local Bodies Jammu requested the Commissioner / Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department to place the services of the petitioner at that point of time attached with the Administrative Department at the disposal of the Directorate to enable proper monitoring and checking of illegal encroachments / construction in the major towns of Udhampur and Katra. It has further been averred that keeping in view the exceptional and extraordinary service rendered by the petitioner as Chief Enforcement Officer, Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu, the petitioner in addition to his own duties was assigned the charge of 3 the post of Chief Enforcement Officer, Jammu Development Authority vide order Annexure C, dated October 9, 2014. It would be relevant to mention here that in response to aforementioned averment, stand of the respondents is that the employer is empowered to depute officials of one wing to another wing in case of requirement and it was wrong and incorrect to contend that the same was done on account of exceptional and extraordinary services rendered by the petitioner. It has also been averred that keeping in view the extraordinary and exceptional service record of the petitioner, the Government vide order Annexure D, dated April 24, 2015 attached the petitioner who at that point of time was serving as Chief Enforcement Officer, Jammu Municipal Corporation Jammu in the Housing & Urban Development Department in order to utilise his services for devising a policy for dealing with regularisation of unauthorised construction of buildings / structures in Jammu, Srinagar and Katra as per the requirement of the J & K Civic Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2014. However, respondents deny having passed order Annexure D on account of extraordinary and exceptional service record of the petitioner.
5. That despite relying on order Annexure D as having been passed on account of his extraordinary and exceptional service record, the petitioner challenged the same by way of SWP No. 1221/2015 on account of same essentially being a punitive order leading to passing of interim order Annexure E, dated April 28, 2015 whereby operation of the said order as also relieving order was not to be acted upon and petitioner was allowed to mark attendance before the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation. Allegation is that invocation of the jurisdiction of the 4 High Court leading to passing of order of stay dated April 28, 2015 seemed to have offended respondent No. 1 who in order to wreak vengeance against the petitioner manoeuvred his compulsory retirement.
6. Mention has also been made in paragraph Nos. 9 to 11 of the writ petition of the petitioner having been falsely involved in 3 FIR's i.e. FIR No. 25 of 2012 dated December 8, 2012 - Annexure F, u/s 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the J & K, Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120 - B, RPC by the Vigilance Organisation Jammu on allegation of his having remained silent and allowed one Shabnam Chowdhry, r/o Gandhi Nagar, Jammu to construct a basement in violation of the approved plan to the extent of 100%, besides the plan approved by the Jammu Municipal Corporation not being in conformity with the Master Plan. Averments in the writ petition in context thereto are that on the face of it the allegations were highly vexatious and false for the petitioner in his capacity as Chief Enforcement Officer, Jammu Municipal Corporation Jammu immediately after inspection of the site of construction being raised by Shabnam Choudhary invoked the penal provisions of Section 12 (1) and Section 7 (1) of the J & K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 and that subsequent to the issuance of statutory notices Annexure G & H, order Annexure I, dated July 31, 2012 u/s 7(3) of the J & K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 was also issued by the Joint Commissioner (A), Jammu Municipal Corporation Jammu whereupon said Shabnam Choudhary approached the J & K Special Tribunal, Jammu leading to passing of order Annexure K dated 03.08.2012 and that her appeal was still pending. Copies of the notices u/s 12 (1) and Section 7 (1) of the J & 5 K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 i.e. Annexure G and Annexure H had been responded to by the respondents in the objections as "it may be a mere eye wash to the authorities or public at large."
7. The 2nd FIR i.e. FIR No. 02 of 2014-Annexure L, dated January 9, 2014 is stated to have been registered u/s 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the J & K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120 - B, RPC against 3 officers / officials of the Jammu Municipal Corporation Jammu including the petitioner and one private person namely Munish Bhatia on the allegations of construction having been raised by said Munish Bhatia in violation of the sanctioned plan. Petitioners plea is that in the case of Munish Bhatia also, the petitioner had timely detected the violation and served notice dated August 14, 2012 u/s 7 (1) and 12 (1) of the J & K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 i.e. Annexure M and Annexure N followed by order u/s 7 (3) of the COBA Act, 1988 i.e. Annexure O whereupon said Munish Bhatia challenged the notices before the J & K Special Tribunal and the J & K Special Tribunal vide order Annexure P, dated May 16, 2013 compounded and regularised the said violation. It has also been averred that the 2 nd FIR i.e. Annexure L was challenged u/s 561 - A Cr.P.C. No. 58/2014 in case titled as Munish Bhatia versus State of J & K and others in which the High Court order Annexure Q, dated March 4, 2014 stayed the FIR.
8. The 3rd FIR i.e. FIR No. 21/2014 dated June 30, 2014 - Annexure R is stated to have been registered u/s 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the J & K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120 - B, RPC against as many as 09 officers / officials of the Jammu 6 Municipal Corporation besides one private person i.e. Ravinder Kumar on the allegations similar to those in the earlier 2 FIR's. As in the case of the other 2 FIR's, stand of the petitioner in respect of the 3rd FIR is also of his having timely detected violation by the said Ravinder Kumar and of having issued 2 notices dated September 26, 2009 u/s 12 (1) and u/s 7 (1) of the J & K, COBA Act 1988, i.e. Annexure S & P followed by notice Annexure U, dated July 26, 2010 of demolition u/s 7 (3) of the J & K COBA Act 1988. Said Ravinder Kumar is stated to have approached the J & K Special Tribunal Jammu which vide order Annexure V, dated April 4, 2012 quashed the demolition notice / order u/s 7 (3) of the J & K, COBA Act, 1988. The Jammu Municipal Corporation Jammu is stated to have filed OWP No. 806/2012 titled BOCA versus Ravinder Kumar in which order of status quo i.e. Annexure W is stated to have been passed by the High Court on June 4, 2012. It needs mention here that the contents of paragraph Nos. 9 to 11 of the writ petition with regard to the three FIR's have been admitted by the respondents in their objections as being a matter of record.
9. That in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition it has been averred that no challan arising out of the aforementioned FIR's has been presented against the petitioner before any competent court of law as during the course of investigation nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner by the Vigilance Organisation. Although objections have been filed for and on behalf of the respondents, yet interestingly in response to paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition it has been mentioned that the same does not pertain to respondent No. 1. Thus the objection in respect thereto is evasive and does not 7 deal with the plea raised, therefore is deemed to have been admitted.
10. The petitioner in paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition has averred that his Annual Performance Reports (hereinafter referred to as APR's) were excellent and that all his superior officers, keeping in view his excellent work and conduct awarded him excellent APRs as evident from remarks of excellent and outstanding recorded in the APR's for the year 2010 to 2015 collectively attached along with as Annexure X. In response thereto, in the objections it has been averred that the officers while reviewing / accepting the APR's did not take cognizance of the FIR's / 09 pending verifications registered against the petitioner and the APR's were not complete as per the mandate of Government Order No. 1311 - GAD of 2001 dated November 9, 2001. However the aforementioned government order has not been produced on record. Moreover, on query it has not been shown as to how the APR's are not complete. The only plea raised is that the APR's did not take cognizance of the FIR's / 09 pending verifications registered against the petitioner. It would be relevant to take note of the fact that the committee which considered the case of the petitioner for retirement under Article 226(A) of the J&K CSR's did not take the APRs of the petitioner into account. In fact it did not have the APR's record before it while considering the case of the petitioner for retirement under Article 226(A) of the J&K CSR's and proceeded only on the basis of a half page gist of allegations pertaining to FIR's and the 09 probes pending against the petitioner.
11. That in the aforementioned background, grievance of the petitioner is of his having been illegally, forcibly and compulsorily 8 retired from government service vide order Annexure Y, dated July 1, 2015 w.e.f. forenoon of July 1, 2015.
12. Challenge has been raised to the impugned order on the ground of the same having been issued without application of mind, on mala fide considerations / based on no evidence / being arbitrary and the outcome of malice, of relevant consideration for passing of impugned order primarily namely APR's for a period of past 3 to 5 years not having been considered, consequently, non-consideration of the APR's of the petitioner which revealed his excellent working to the satisfaction of his superiors, smacked of arbitrariness, that mere registration of FIR's could not by itself be a ground for directing compulsory retirement of the petitioner particularly when no challan had been filed, that the impugned order was punitive as by the said order, the petitioner had been proclaimed to be inefficient and dishonest, that the Review Committee constituted by the government was to consider the entire service record before taking a decision in the matter while attaching more importance to the record as also performance during the later years as also by taking note of petitioner having been promoted and of the adverse remarks of the period prior thereto losing all sting. It was also contended that the review committee was to consider record which included entries in the confidential records, character rolls both favourable and adverse but the same had not been done, that the APR's of the petitioner throughout his service career especially for the preceding 5 years prior to the passing of the impugned order were excellent and outstanding (paragraph No. 15(G)), therefore in the absence of material supporting the order of retirement, passing of the impugned order by respondent No. 1 was illegal and in colourable exercise of 9 powers. (The only response in the objections to the aforementioned ground is that the officer while reviewing / accepting the APR's did not take cognizance of FIR's / 09 pending verifications registered against the petitioner and that the APR's were not complete as per the mandate of Government Order No. 1311 - GD of 2001 dated November 9, 2011). In other words there is no response to the averment of there being no material supporting the order of retirement of the petitioner except for reference to FIR's / 09 pending verifications. Other pleas of the petitioner are that respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order had not taken into account that the petitioner had not been awarded any punishment during his entire service carrier, that the impugned order had been supposedly passed on the basis of some report given by the Vigilance Organisation but no challan had been produced against the petitioner, that the impugned order cast a stigma and had been passed by way of punishment in violation of statutory provisions without compliance with the principles of Natural Justice and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain his position, that the petitioner was entitled to continue in-service as per the mandate of rules, that the assessment and evaluation of record w.r.t. continued utility of the petitioner had not been made in accordance with the law and service rules and the impugned order retiring the petitioner was clearly and manifestly a colourable exercise of power calculated to achieve a collateral purpose.
13. Objections filed highlight that the Government was duty bound to provide clean and effective administration to the people of the State and in order to make the administration effective, periodic review of all its officers was undertaken by the State Government to 10 encourage honest and efficient Government Servants while simultaneously weeding out the inefficient and corrupt officers from service in public interest by recourse to the provisions of Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956, that in order to consider the case of the petitioner for premature retirement in terms of Article 226 (2) of the Regulations, a committee was constituted for the said purpose vide Government Order Number :-151-HUD of 2015 Dated June 17, which held its deliberations / meeting on June 17, 2015, considered the mandate of Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations 1956 and took into account :
" the records regarding involvement of the petitioner allegations deliberately and dishonestly facilitating the raising of 3 stories commercial complex with basement at 292 - A, Apsara Road opposite Peer Baba Gandhinagar Jammu in total violation of sanctioned Building Plan, Master Plan Zonal regulations and Building by laws etc and issuing of building permission in violation of master plan in favour of one Mst. Shabnam Choudhary R/O Gandhi Nagar, Jammu illegally and fraudulently by abusing his official position and thus conferred wrongful gain to the beneficiary, besides there are as many 09 verifications under probe against the petitioner. The committee on consideration of the record observed that the petitioner does not enjoy good reputation in the public due to his consistent conduct over a period of time. Besides, the 11 petitioner also figures in FIR No. 02/2014 VOJ and FIR No. 25/2012 VOJ and 09 other verifications are under probe against him and has been involved in several wrong doing during his service tenure, thereby substantiating the fact he has outlived his utility to the public. Having regard to the material placed before the committee, the committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner is generally known to have a bad reputation and has indulged in wrongdoings while performing his duties. The committee, therefore, recommended for premature retirement of the district under Article 226 (2) J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956. The recommendations so made were accepted by the competent authority resultant thereto in issuance of the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the impugned premature order is legal and in accordance with law. "
14. That, preliminary objections have also been taken that the order was neither punitive nor stigmatic, power to prematurely retire a government servant in terms of the service rules was absolute as the competent authority was of the bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of the petitioner was in public interest, the impugned order had been issued strictly in accordance with the service rules governing the petitioner and the opinion of the committee was accepted by the competent authority in public interest, the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned could not be made the subject of judicial review as it was settled law that sufficiency of material upon which the order rests could not be gone 12 into by the High Court. On merits it has been alleged that none of the rights of the petitioner had been violated or infringed so as to entitle him to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court, that admittedly the petitioner was promoted as Chief Enforcement Officer but immediately on his assuming charge of the said post, the petitioner started abusing his position and indulged in corrupt practices and wrongdoings because he was controlling officer at the level of enforcement wing of Jammu Municipal Corporation, the mere fact that appreciation Annexure A had been issued once did not imply that the same would enunure for the entire tenure of his service, that the officers while reviewing / accepting the petitioners APR's did not take cognizance of FIR's / 09 pending verifications registered against the petitioner besides the APR's were not complete as per the mandate of Government Order No. 1311 - GAD of 2001 dated November 9, 2001, that the investigation was still under process etc. Shri S.S. Nanda, Learned Sr. Additional Advocate General reiterated submissions as per pleadings and had also produced government order No. 151H&UDD of 2015 dated 17.06.2015 constituting the Committee, page No. 5 of the proceedings of the committee reflecting gist of involvement of the petitioner besides page Nos. 6 & 7 of said proceedings also dated 17.06.2015 containing recommendations of said committee. Photocopies of the record produced by the learned counsel for the official respondents was taken on record.
15. I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record produced. In nutshell, stand of the respondents in defence of the passing of the impugned order is of the name of the petitioner figuring in 3 FIR's, beside his facing verification in 09 probes, of 13 allegations of his having facilitated construction in violation of the Master Plan by misusing his official position and of the same being the subject matter of the FIR's. Ld. Sr. AAG produced the record pertaining to consideration of the case of the petitioner by the committee constituted vide Government Order No.- 151 H&UDD of 2015 dated June 17, 2015 held under the Chairmanship of Commissioner Secretary to Government, Housing And Urban Development Department for retirement under Article 226 (2) of J&K CSRs. Operative extract of the proceedings of the said committee are as under: -
" It was reported that the officer had the reputation of deliberately and dishonestly, facilitating illegal constructions in his jurisdiction. It was reported that the officer dishonestly helped in raising three- Storeyed Commercial complex with basement at 292- A, Apsara Road, opposite PeerBaba Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, in violation of the sanctioned building plan, Master Plan, Zonal Regulations and Building Bye laws (COBO) etc. It was reported that the Officer in Criminal connivance favoured the construction of one Mst. Shabana Chowdhary r/o Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, owner of Plot No. 821 - A Gandhi Nagar Jammu, in violation of the Master Plan, thus illegally and fraudulently, conferred wrongful gains to the beneficiary by abusing his official position. It was also reported to the committee that 9 cases of illegal 14 facilitation for constructions in violation of Master Plan and building bye laws were under probe for verification against the officer.
The committee took note of facts that the officer, holding a post of Enforcement was generally known to have a reputation of conniving with the violators of law for raising illegal constructions, in violation of the approved plans. Since the officer was found involved in corrupt practices, therefore, it is recommended that Mr. Satish Khajuria, Chief Enforcement Officer, JMC be retired from Government service in the public interest, under Article 226 (2) of J&K CSR. It is further recommended that Mr Satish Khajuria be given 3 months pay and allowances in advance, as admissible in view of the notice.
Sd/- 17/6 Sd/- 17/6 Sd/-
Commissioner Additional Senior Law
JMC Secretary, H&UDD Officer,
H&UDD
Sd/- 17/6/15
Commissioner Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department"
16. That the involvement of the petitioner as was taken into account by the committee as produced by the Ld. AAG is reproduced hereunder :-
Name : Shri Satish Khajuria
DOB : 31.07.1956
Present Post : Chief Enforcement
Officer .
Place of Posting: Jammu Municipal
Corporation. This
Payment: 15,600 - 39,100
15
Last Pay drawn : 68,974.00
Gist of involvement: -
S. Case FIR Case of allegation / Individual Present
No. No. liability of accused. status
1. 02/2014 - Deliberately and dishonestly Under
VOJ facilitated the raising of three- investigation.
storey commercial complex
with basement at 292 - A,
Apsara Road opposite
Bahrainis, nothing very
PeerBaba, Gandhi Nagar
Jammu in total violation of
sanction building plan, master
plan zoning regulations and
building Bye - Laws (COBO)
etc.
2. 25/2012 - The officials of JMC issued Under
VOJ building permission in violation investigation.
of the Master Plan in favour of
one Mst. Shabnam Chowdhary
r/o Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
owner of Plot No. 821 - A
Gandhi Nagar Jammu illegally
and fraudulently by abusing
their official position and thus
conferred wrongful gain to the
beneficiary.
3. Verifications Also under probe are 09 Verifications against the said officer.
Ld. AAG stated that the impugned order had been passed on the basis of the recommendations of the committee on the basis of record as referred to above.
17. That learned counsel for the petitioner contended that apart from the gist of allegations against the petitioner of his involvement in the FIR's besides his facing probe in 09 verifications there was no other material available with the committee nor was taken into account before giving its recommendations for prematurely retiring the petitioner nor do the recommendations by the committee disclose taking of APRs / service record into account. 16
18. That submission was made that the remarks in the APR's of the petitioner were self explanatory and established beyond doubt that the order of premature retirement of the petitioner was absolutely arbitrary and illegal. In view of the aforesaid submission it becomes necessary to refer to the APR's of the petitioner. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder.
A). REPORT FOR THE YEAR - 2010-11
Period ending - 2011
2. Post and office in which served during the year / period under report -Chief Enforcement Officer, JMC, Zone-I/III
6. Intelligence :
a. Capacity in understanding the schedule and instructions Outstanding.
b. Energy and reliability in carrying out the work entrusted to him-Outstanding.
c. Timely disposal & submissions of returns & schedules- Outstanding.
7. a. Initiative and grip of work- Outstanding.
b. Behavior with superiors- Outstanding. c. Assistance rendered to subordinates & colleagues -
Satisfactory.
9(a). Organisation & distribution of work in large team -
Very good.
b. Capacity in imparting training to the staff (under
him/ State field staff- Very Good.
c. Control over the staff under him- Very Good
10. Any outstanding work done during the period under review, mention special recommendations.-
Played a leading role in removal of
encroachments.
17
11. Whether he/she had been reprimanded for indifferent work or for other cases during the period under review, brief particulars be given---
12. Remarks as to defects in character etc. which intimate against efficiency and suitability for particular classes- Bears Good Moral Character.
13. Assessment of integrity ( if anything adverse has come up to your notice, please specify) - Beyond Doubt.
14. Do you consider him fit for promotion to the next higher grade- Yes. Deserves to be elevated to higher position.
16. General Assessment ( with special remarks, if any)- A Hardworking, Sincere and dedicated officer in the organisation.
17. Grading : Outstanding √ Very Good Good Fair Poor Sd/-
Dated : 25.01. 13. Signature Initiating officer.
Joint Commissioner (A) Municipal Corporation, Jammu Name, Designation with Seal Remarks of the Accepting Authority dated 05.05.2014 : A good officer, hardworking and always ready to work even at odd hours after his duties.
Sd/-
Dated : 05.05. 14. The then Commissioner
Municipal Corporation, Jammu
Name, Designation with Seal
xxx
B). REPORT FOR THE YEAR - 2011-12
Period ending - 3/2012
18
2. Post and office in which served during the year / period under report -Chief Enforcement Officer.
6. Intelligence :
a. Capacity in understanding the schedule and instructions - Very Good.
b. Energy and reliability in carrying out the work entrusted to him- Very Good.
c. Timely disposal and submissions of returns and schedules- Outstanding.
7. a. Initiative and grip of work- Outstanding.
b. Behavior with superiors- Very Good. c. Assistance rendered to subordinates & colleagues - Very Good.
9(a). Organisation & distribution of work in large team- Very good. b. Capacity in imparting training to the staff (under him/ State field staff- Outstanding.
c. Control over the staff under him- Outstanding.
10. Any outstanding work done during the period under review, mention special recommendations.- Expert in tackling the situation tactfully.
12. Remarks as to defects in character etc. which intimate against efficiency and suitability for particular classes- Beyond any doubt.
13. Assessment of integrity ( if anything adverse has come up to your notice, please specify) - Nothing adverse observed.
14. Do you consider him fit for promotion to the next higher grade- Yes.
16. General Assessment ( with special remarks, if any)- Hardworking and sincere officer.
17. Grading : Outstanding √ Very Good Good Fair Poor 19 Sd/-
Dated : Signature Initiating officer.
Joint Commissioner (A) Municipal Corporation, Jammu Name, Designation with Seal Remarks of the Accepting Authority: I accept.
Sd/-
Commissioner
Municipal Corporation, Jammu
Name, Designation with Seal
xxx
C). REPORT FOR THE YEAR - 2011-12
Period ending - Ending 3/2012
2. Post and office in which served during the year / period under report -Chief Enforcement Officer.
6. Intelligence :
a. Capacity in understanding the schedule and instructions - Outstanding.
b. Energy and reliability in carrying out the work entrusted to him- Outstanding.
c. Timely disposal and submissions of returns and schedules- Outstanding.
7. a. Initiative and grip of work- Very Good.
b. Behavior with superiors- Very Good.
c. Assistance rendered to subordinates & colleagues -
Satisfactory.
9(a). Organisation & distribution of work in large team- Very good. b. Capacity in imparting training to the staff (under him/ State field staff- Very Good.
c. Control over the staff under him- Outstanding.
10. Any outstanding work done during the period under review, mention special recommendations.- Played vital role during demolition drives.
20
12. Remarks as to defects in character etc. which intimate against efficiency and suitability for particular classes- Beyond any doubt.
13. Assessment of integrity ( if anything adverse has come up to your notice, please specify) - Nothing adverse noticed.
14. Do you consider him fit for promotion to the next higher grade- Yes.
16. General Assessment ( with special remarks, if any)- An asset to the Jammu Municipal Corporation.
17. Grading : Outstanding √ Very Good Good Fair Poor Sd/-
Dated : 25.01.2013 Signature Initiating officer.
Joint Commissioner (A) Municipal Corporation, Jammu Name, Designation with Seal 5th of May 2014 Jammu Remarks of the Accepting Authority : Hardworking & V. good officer.
Sd/-
The then Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Jammu Name, Designation with Seal xxx D). REPORT FOR THE YEAR - 2012-13 Period ending - March 2013
2. Post and office in which served during the year / period under report -CEO.
6. Intelligence :
a. Capacity in understanding the schedule and instructions - Outstanding.21
b. Energy and reliability in carrying out the work entrusted to him-Very Good.
c. Timely disposal and submissions of returns and schedules- Very Good.
7. a. Initiative and grip of work- Outstanding.
b. Behavior with superiors- Very Good.
c. Assistance rendered to subordinates & colleagues - Very
Good.
9(a). Organisation & distribution of work in large team-
Outstanding.
b. Capacity in imparting training to the staff (under him/ State field staff- Outstanding.
c. Control over the staff under him- Very Good
10. Any outstanding work done during the period under review, mention special recommendations - Removed encroachments from roadside and unauthorised constructions demolished.
11. Whether he/she had been reprimanded for indifferent work or for other cases during the period under review, brief particulars be given---
12. Remarks as to defects in character etc. which intimate against efficiency and suitability for particular classes- Nothing adverse noted during the period.
13. Assessment of integrity ( if anything adverse has come up to your notice, please specify) - Beyond any doubt.
14. Do you consider him fit for promotion to the next higher grade- Fit for promotion.
16. General Assessment ( with special remarks, if any)- Very sincere, hardworking and loyal to his superiors. A very dedicated and efficient officer.
22
17. Grading : Outstanding √ Very Good Good Fair Poor Sd/-
Dated : 25.02.2013 Signature Initiating officer.
Joint Commissioner (A) Municipal Corporation, Jammu Name, Designation with Seal Remarks of the Accepting Authority : I agree and accept.
Sd/- 02.04.2013 Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Jammu Name, Designation with Seal xxx E). REPORT FOR THE YEAR / PERIOD ending 2013 - 14.
Part - I Personal Data ( To be filled in by the Department/ Office)
1. Name of the Officer : Satish Chander Khajuria
2. Date of Birth : 31 .07. 1956
3. Present post and date of appointment : Chief Enforcement Officer ( 26.07.1972)
4. Period of absence from duty, on leave, : -
training etc during the year.
Part - II (Assessment by the Initiating Officer) 1 General Assessment Excellent Good Satisfactory Below job requirement 1 2 3 4 5
(i) Knowledge of √ work
(ii) Power of √ acquiring general information
(iii) Attention to details √
(iv) Industry and conscientiousness √
(v) Judgment 23 √
(vi) Speed of disposal √
(vii) Initiative √
(viii) Control over subordinates √
(ix) Relations with public √
(x) Integrity Nothing adverse reported.
(xi) If the officer has The officer
done any notable has good
work brief mention knowledge
thereof may be of rules of
made. Similarly if Corporation.
the officer has
been reprimanded
for indifferent
work brief mention
thereof should be
made.
Sd/-
Dated : 14.05. 15. Signature of initiating officer.
Joint Commissioner (A)
Municipal Corporation, Jammu
Designation
Part - III
3. Remarks of Reviewing Authority:
Dated: 31st March, 2014
Signature of Review Authority
Designation
Part - IV
4. Remarks of Accepting Authority:
Officer has been dedicated, hardworking and efficient in rendering his duties even during odd hours. He is an asset to Jammu Municipal Corporation particularly in the field of enforcement.
Sd/-
Signature of Accepting Authority Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation 24 Designation That qua report for the year 2013-14, it needs mention that although no date is mentioned on which the accepting officer gave his remarks, against the column of remarks of reviewing officer, date 31.03.2014 is mentioned in the same handwriting as of the accepting officer although there are no remarks of the reviewing officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the same indicates the period upto which the reviewing officer gave his remarks. The same is not disputed by Mr. S. S. Nanda, Learned Sr. AAG. In the light of the aforementioned background, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been recorded to be an asset to the Jammu Municipal Corporation.
xxx F). Likewise REPORT FOR THE YEAR / PERIOD ending 2014 - 15 the remarks of the initiating officer are as under
Part - I Personal Data ( To be filled in by the Department/ Office)
1. Name of the Officer : Satish Chander Khajuria
2. Date of Birth : 31 .07. 1956
3. Present post and date of appointment : Chief Enforcement Officer
4. Period of absence from duty, on leave, : -
training etc during the year.
Part - II (Assessment by the Initiating Officer) 1 General Assessment Excellent Good Satisfactory Below job requirement 1 2 3 4 5
(i) Knowledge of √ work
(ii) Power of √ acquiring general information
(iii) Attention to details √
(iv) Industry and 25 conscientiousness √
(v) Judgment √
(vi) Speed of disposal √
(vii) Initiative √
(viii) Control over subordinates √
(ix) Relations with public √
(x) Integrity Nothing adverse reported.
(xi) If the officer has The
done any notable officer
work brief mention knows
thereof may be his job
made. Similarly if well.
the officer has
been reprimanded
for indifferent
work brief mention
thereof should be
made.
Sd/-01.06.15
Dated : Signature of initiating officer.
Joint Commissioner (A)
Municipal Corporation, Jammu
Designation
Part - III
3. Remarks of Reviewing Authority:
Dated: 16th March, 2015
Signature of Review Authority
Designation
Part - IV
4. Remarks of Accepting Authority:
Officer has been dedicated, hardworking & efficient while rendering his duties even during odd hours. He is an asset to Jammu Municipal Corporation particularly in the field of enforcement.
Sd/-
Signature of Accepting Authority Commissioner 26 Jammu Municipal Corporation Designation That qua report for the year 2014-15 it needs mention that although no date is mentioned on which the accepting officer gave his remarks, against the column of remarks of reviewing officer, date 16th March 2015 is mentioned in the same handwriting as of the accepting officer although there are no remarks of the reviewing officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the same indicates the period upto which the reviewing officer gave his remarks. The same is not disputed by Mr. S. S. Nanda, Learned Sr. AAG. In the light of the aforementioned background, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been recorded to be an asset to the Jammu Municipal Corporation.
19. That on the basis of the aforesaid record, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the APRs of the petitioner for the period 2010-2015 i.e. immediately preceding the date of his premature retirement reveals that the petitioner had been consistently graded as "very good" " Outstanding" and as regards his integrity, it had consistently been recorded to be appreciable / beyond any doubt. Learned counsel contends that aforesaid APRs, admittedly, had not been taken into consideration by the Committee in question and that in the light of the remarks recorded in the APRs of the petitioner during the period immediately preceding the recommendations formulated by the Committee, without looking into his records, it was impossible for anyone to have made the 27 recommendations as had actually been made. It is submitted that since the APRs in question had not been taken into account, it was evident that the petitioner's service record was not considered, therefore, the action of the respondents could not be termed to be bona fide, consequentially, the impugned order was unsustainable.
20. Thus the controversy in issue is whether the premature retirement of the petitioner on the basis of registration of 3 FIR's and pendency of 9 verification probes despite the APR's for the period 2010 - 2015 rating the officer sincere, hard-working, dedicated, efficient, having good knowledge of rules, of being an asset to the Jammu Municipal Corporation particularly in the field of enforcement besides having remarks of "excellent" "outstanding" qua other fields of assessment besides remarks of "nothing adverse noted during the period" qua integrity, without considering the APR's of the petitioner is legally sustainable ?
21. The plea that after rendering considerable service in the Jammu Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer, therefore in view of ground (f) in paragraph No. 15, the record prior to promotion could not be taken into account is without merit for the simple reason that the petitioner was promoted as Chief Enforcement Officer on 31.12.2003 whereas the FIR's pertain to incidents of a period subsequent thereto. However, the period for which the 09 probes relate to has not been mentioned nor clarified.
22. No doubt, 3 FIR's stand registered against the petitioner on December 8, 2012 dated January 9, 2014 and June 30, 2014 but as 28 has been noticed above, FIR No. 02/2014 - VOJ and FIR No. 25/2012 - VOJ as per note before the Review Committee mentions the present status qua the said FIR's to be "Under Investigation". With regard to the 3rd FIR i.e. FIR No. 21/2014 dated June 30, 2014, there is no mention of the same having been considered by the review committee as there is no mention of the same either in the note put up before the Review Committee nor is there any mention of the same in the proceedings of the committee dated June 17, 2015. In any case it is the categorical stand of the petitioner in ground No. 15 (c) that the mere fact that FIR's were registered by itself could not be a ground for directing premature retirement when no challan had been filed. Non filing of challan has not been disputed. The law on the subject as is reported in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Versus Suryakant Chunilal Shah reported as 1999 (1) SCC 529 is very clear as it lays down that mere registration of FIR without anything more does not warrant premature retirement of a government servant. Reference to the relevant extract of the same would be made in the succeeding paragraphs of this judgment.
23. That the petitioner has also placed on record notices issued / orders passed by him taking action against the concerned plot owners who had raised construction in violation of the norms. The action taken by the petitioner is prior in time to the registration of the FIR's. Qua, FIR No. 25/2012 dated December 8, 2012 the notices were issued on July 16, 2012 while order as to why the violations be not demolished was issued on July 31, 2012. However FIR came to be registered later on, only on December 8, 2012. No doubt the stand of the respondents in the FIR is that the petitioner took action 29 only when the SVO started investigating the matter. However Ld. counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner took action the moment the violations came to his notice, and the position would have been different had no action been taken by the petitioner. As regards FIR No. 02/2014 dated January 9, 2014 the notices were served by the petitioner on the owner of the plot on August 14, 2012 whereas order under the COBA Act, 1988 is dated December 17, 2012 requiring the owner of the plot to demolish the construction/violation within 5 days. The J&K Special Tribunal regularised the deviations in question by compounding the same vide order dated May 16, 2013 whereas the FIR came to be registered on January 9, 2014 and proceedings in respect thereto came to be stayed by this court vide order dated March 4, 2014. In the 3rd FIR i.e. FIR No. 21/2014 dated June 30, 2014, the petitioner had issued notices dated September 26, 2009 to the owner of the plot followed by notice dated July 26, 2010 for demolition of the construction/violation whereas the J & K Special Tribunal Jammu vide order dated April 4, 2012 quashed the demolition notice/order under the J & K COBA Act, 1988. On writ petition being filed against the order of the J & K Special Tribunal, this court passed orders of status quo on June 4, 2012 whereas FIR was registered on June 30, 2014. The above sequence of events goes to show action having been taken by the petitioner qua the constructions alleged to be in violation of norms and that too, prior to the registration of FIR's.
24. That the action by the petitioner against the defaulters is prior in time to the registration of the FIR's. The alleged violations for which the petitioner was booked pertain to the year July 2012, August 2012 and September 2009 while FIR No. 25 of 2012 came to 30 be registered on December 8, 2012, FIR No. 02 of 2014 came to be registered on January 9, 2014 while FIR No. 21/2014 came to be registered on June 30, 2014. In the interregnum i.e. from the date of alleged construction in violation of norms, issuance of notices/orders by the petitioner in respect thereto and till registration of FIR's and even later thereto, nothing has been brought on record to show the calling of any explanation of the petitioner or for that matter any show cause notice having been issued to the petitioner in respect of alleged constructions to be in violation of norms. Investigation qua aforesaid FIR's is not shown to have been completed. There is no denial of the averment that Challan has not been filed in the court. The violations pertain to the year 2009 and 2012. Yet the consideration under Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Relations, 1956 came to be initiated and action taken only on 17th June 2015 on constitution of a committee headed by respondent No. 1 which gave its recommendations on the same day leading to passing of impugned order Annexure Y dated 30.06.2016. Impugned order is primarily in view of the registration of FIR's. Investigation in respect of said FIR's is not stated to have yet been completed. Challan is also not denied as not having been filed. In the circumstances, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order as has been alleged to be passed in public interest cannot be said to be justified. On the contrary, the impugned order reflects exercise of power for achieving a collateral purpose. This inference is inescapable on viewing of the impugned order in the context of remarks of the accepting authority on the APR's of the petitioner for the years 2010 - 15 of the officer being a dedicated, hard-working officer in discharging his duties even during odd hours 31 and of his being an asset to the Jammu Municipal Corporation particularly in the field of enforcement as also when viewed in the context of the allegation, of the order dated April 28, 2015 staying the operation of order dated April 24, 2015 whereby sanction had been accorded to the attachment of the petitioner, Chief Enforcement Officer, Jammu Municipal Corporation in the Housing and Urban Development Department by respondent No. 1, having offended respondent No. 1. The Commissioner / Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department is not a party by name. However, this court can take note of the position as noted above as also the fact that the Review Committee was chaired by none other than the Commissioner Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department as also that the matter which was to the knowledge of the authorities since 2009/2012 was suddenly expedited for taking action under Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Relations, 1956 within days of the order of Commissioner Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department having been stayed by this court i.e. Committee was constituted on 17.06.2015 under Chairmanship of respondent No. 1 and recommendation was also given by the said committee Chaired by respondent No. 1 on the same day on the basis of a half page note containing gist of allegations against the petitioner despite investigations in respect thereto not having been completed by the police nor Challan having been filed, besides, incident pertaining to the year 2009 and 2012 leading to passing of impugned order dated 30.06.2015 without taking the APR's into account.
32
25. That article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 under which the impugned order has been passed is as under: -
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, require any Government servant other than the one working on a post which is included in Schedule II of these Rules, to retire at any time after he has completed 22 years / 44 completed 6 monthly periods of qualifying service or on attaining 48 years of age; provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice (in one of the forms prescribed in annexures A and B hereto as the case may be), to the Government servant at least 3 months before the date on which he is required to retire or 3 months of pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. Such a Government servant shall be granted pensionary benefits admissible under these rules on the basis of qualifying service put in by him on the date of such retirement.
Explanation. - A Government servant who is retired immediately after allowing him pay and allowances in lieu of notice will be entitled to pension from the date of such retirement and the pension shall not be deferred till after the expiry of the 3 months for which he is paid pay and allowances.................." 33
26. That law on premature retirements is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
i) In K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India- (1995) 6 SCC 162 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ―While exercising the power under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authority has to weigh several circumstances in arriving at the conclusion that the employee requires to be compulsorily retired in public interest. The Government is given power to energise its machinery by weeding out dead wood, inefficient, corrupt and people of doubtful integrity by compulsorily retiring them from service. When the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of the government employee is in the public interest, court would not interfere with the order." The Court, however, added that the opinion must be based on the material on record otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power. It was also held that the decision to compulsorily retire an employee can, therefore, be challenged on the ground that requisite opinion was based on no evidence or had not been formed or the decision was based on collateral grounds or that it was an arbitrary decision.
ii) In Gian Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana-(1980) 4 SCC 266 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ―the expression ‗public interest' in the context of premature retirement has a well-settled meaning. It refers to cases where the interests of public administration require the retirement of a government servant who with the passage of years has 34 prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency, competency and utility called for by the government service to which he belongs‖.
iii) While explaining the term ―public interest‖ Hon'ble Supreme Court in its classic decision in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha-(1970) 2 SCC 458 pointed out that the object of premature retirement of a government servant was to weed out the inefficient, corrupt, dishonest employees from the government service. The public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service while the services of the dishonest or the corrupt or who are almost dead wood, are to be dispensed with......"
iv) In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer- (1992) 2 SCC 299 the following five principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
―(a) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(b) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government.
(c) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate 35 court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or
(c) that it is arbitrary -- in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.
(d) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter -- of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.
(e) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated, adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.‖
v) In S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India-(1979) 2 SCC 491 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of compulsory retirement was in the case a gross abuse of power as there was nothing on the record to justify and support the order. 36
vi) In State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529, Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to its aforesaid decisions held
"27. The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a government servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involvement in two criminal cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add 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 nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee."
27. That a learned Single Judge of this Court in Khurshid Anwar Shah vs State of J&K & ors- SWP No. 322/2012 decided on 23.09.2015 in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Gupta v. State of J&K & ors-
2013(3)SCC514 was pleased to hold as under " 28. In regard to premature retirements ordered merely because of involvement of a government 37 servant in criminal cases, it was held that the involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. It has been laid down, however, mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would dependent upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence, alleged committed by the employee. There being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity cannot be said to have been doubted at any time. Where the character roll entries subsequent to the government servant's promotion to the next higher post were not available, it could not be concluded that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could it be concluded that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was held to be punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal rather than in public interest. 38
28. That the learned Single Judge was further pleased to hold as under
" 46. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court, as seen above, the respondents, in the instant case, have not considered and taken into account the service record or the confidential reports of the petitioner which would furnish the back drop material of the petitioner for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority to arrive at, or assume, the requisite satisfaction. It is settled law, as seen above, that an opinion, that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service, can be formed only on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances; therefore, the entire service record, more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. In the instant case, the respondents have not considered any of the service records of the petitioner. They have solely relied on the allegations on the basis of which the criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The recommendation against the petitioner has, thus, been formulated without any basis. Such recommendation by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a bona 39 fide exercise on the part of the Committee/respondents. That being the factual position, it can safely be said that the respondents have not exercised their power in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the impugned order is unfounded, baseless, having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The order is, therefore, vitiated on account of lack of bona fides and obviously has been actuated by considerations extraneous to the exercise of power under Article 226(2) of the CSRs.
47. This Court, as laid down by the Supreme Court, has a duty cast on it to exercise the power of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised and whether the order is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration. Having considered the matter, this Court is left with no option, but to hold that the order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.
48. As mentioned earlier, the recommendations have been formulated by the Committee constituted by the Government only on account of involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case. Involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case did not mean that he was guilty. The respondents ought to have borne in mind that the petitioner was still to be tried in 40 a court of law and the truth was to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution was ultimately conducted. But before that stage was reached, it was highly improper to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement in the case. It is true that there were some severe allegations levelled against the petitioner, but on mere allegations such a grave action was unwarranted. The Government could have awaited the decision in the case. There was no reason to show such a promptitude in exercise of power under Article 226(2) of the CSRs. Awaiting the result of the trial was more necessitated because there was no other material which would warrant compulsory retirement of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents have not exercised their power in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service."
29. Thus apart from the gist of allegations against the petitioner of his involvement in the FIR's besides his facing probe in 09 verifications there was no other material available with the committee nor was taken into account before giving its recommendations for prematurely retiring the petitioner. Recommendations by the committee do not disclose taking of APRs / service record into account. The same is in violation of settled law. The plea that the APR's were recorded in violation of the order applicable in respect thereto would have carried weight in case the 41 said APR's had been considered and dealt with on aforesaid point. In the absence of APR's having been available with the committee and same not having been taken into account, the said objections is not maintainable. In view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (Supra) mere registration of FIR cannot furnish the basis to the Competent Authority to retire a public servant in public interest purportedly on account of FIR having been registered. In the circumstances, in the light of the position as noted in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has not reached the age of superannuation and is to retire on 31.07.2016. In the circumstances, while allowing the writ petition, impugned order is quashed, petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. However, in view of respondent No. 1 not having been impleaded as party by name despite allegations of malafide exercise of power by said officer, it would not be appropriate to follow the normal rule of grant of full salary on reinstatement in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Gupta vs State of J&K & ors- 2013(3) SCC 514. Accordingly, payment of salary from the date of order of premature retirement till reinstatement is restricted to 30%. Petitioner shall also not be entitled to any interest on monetary benefits. No order as to costs.
(B. S. Walia.) Judge.
Jammu 15.07.2016