1. Home
2. Jammu

State suffers setback, HC dismisses LPA against 7 employees

KT NEWS SERVICE. Dated: 12/13/2017 3:08:54 PM

JAMMU, Dec 12(JNF): In a major set-back to the State, a Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sanjeev Kumar Tuesday dismissed an LPA of State challenging the judgment in premature retirement cases including that of Chief Engineer Prem Nath.
The Division Bench after hearing AAG Rohit Kapoor for the State dismissed this LPA filed by the State against Mumtaz Hussain Bhat, Sher Singh, Girdhari Lal, Tarsem Lal, Farid Ahmed Tak, Sher Mohammed Khan and Prem Nath Chief Engineer.
While dismissing the appeals, Division Bench observed, “While the committee can always asses the integrity of a government servant and consider the reputation which he enjoys yet for assessing the same, there has to be some basis in the service records. Hearsay reputation or casual statements questioning the integrity of a person ought not to be considered for the same may be baseless or attributed for malafide purposes. Even for purposes of assessing the reputation of a government servant, the material must be cogent, the same must be in the shape of record which must then be considered in the correct perspective.”
“Opinion regarding doubtful integrity and questionable reputation must emanate from an officer, who has had an opportunity to see the work and conduct of the officer from a close quarter on a day to day basis. Relying upon an opinion of Secretary of the Administrative Department, who might not have any firsthand information and experience of having seen and worked with the officer concerned would be both risky and uncalled for and would give credence to the saying "give a dog a bad name and then kill it’,” the Division Bench observed.
It further observed, “In State of J&K Vs Prem Nath , the committee has not discussed as to what was the source or material based upon which the petitioner was said to be not enjoying good reputation. If that be so, the order of pre mature retirement based upon any such assessment can only be said to be arbitrary and thus cannot be upheld on the legal touchstone. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the law discussed hereinabove, it can be seen that the Committee constituted by the Govt. did not at all consider the relevant material and had taken a decision based only upon the fact that an FIR had been registered by the Vigilance Organization Jammu against the petitioner.”
“In that view of the matter, there was no justification for the State to pre-maturely retire the respondent-petitioner from service,” with these observations Division Bench dismissed the appeal of State stating that it was found to be without any merit.