Rajesh Gupta v. State of J&K, (2013) 3 SCC 514
Service Law
Compulsory Retirement
Jurisdiction to quash order of compulsory retirement - Arbitrary exercise of power of compulsory retirement -
Compulsory retirement, set aside - Report submitted by High-Powered Committee not establishing that assets were
disproportionate to appellant's source of income, nor any irregularity in his bank accounts discernible - Besides, three
FIRs registered against him, on investigation, found not proved", and in fact appellant promoted thereafter - Furthermore,
despite recommendation by State Vigilance Organisation to initiate departmental action against appellant, no action ever
initiated - Thus, there was no material before High-Powered Committee to conclude that appellant officer possessed
disproportionate assets - Allegation pertaining to issuing backdated technical sanctions at best establishing that appellant
acted in casual and haphazard manner in maintenance of records - Such negligence per se cannot lead to conclusion
that appellant was acting in such manner with ulterior motive -
Conclusions of High-Powered Committee also did not corelate to assessment and integrity of appellant's work (appellant had a blemish-free service record) - Order of compulsory
retirement passed by State Government, was thus, arbitrary, (2013) 3 SCC 514-A
Service Law
Compulsory Retirement
Object of - Principles governing, reiterated,
Impugned order of compulsory retirement passed against appellant found arbitrary, and hence set aside - Appellant, as
yet, not attaining age of superannuation, hence directed to be reinstated in service - However, considering fact that he
had not challenged order of premature retirement on grounds of mala fides 30% back wages from date of order of
premature retirement till reinstatement, granted,
Print Page
Service Law
Compulsory Retirement
Jurisdiction to quash order of compulsory retirement - Arbitrary exercise of power of compulsory retirement -
Compulsory retirement, set aside - Report submitted by High-Powered Committee not establishing that assets were
disproportionate to appellant's source of income, nor any irregularity in his bank accounts discernible - Besides, three
FIRs registered against him, on investigation, found not proved", and in fact appellant promoted thereafter - Furthermore,
despite recommendation by State Vigilance Organisation to initiate departmental action against appellant, no action ever
initiated - Thus, there was no material before High-Powered Committee to conclude that appellant officer possessed
disproportionate assets - Allegation pertaining to issuing backdated technical sanctions at best establishing that appellant
acted in casual and haphazard manner in maintenance of records - Such negligence per se cannot lead to conclusion
that appellant was acting in such manner with ulterior motive -
Conclusions of High-Powered Committee also did not corelate to assessment and integrity of appellant's work (appellant had a blemish-free service record) - Order of compulsory
retirement passed by State Government, was thus, arbitrary, (2013) 3 SCC 514-A
Service Law
Compulsory Retirement
Object of - Principles governing, reiterated,
Impugned order of compulsory retirement passed against appellant found arbitrary, and hence set aside - Appellant, as
yet, not attaining age of superannuation, hence directed to be reinstated in service - However, considering fact that he
had not challenged order of premature retirement on grounds of mala fides 30% back wages from date of order of
premature retirement till reinstatement, granted,
No comments:
Post a Comment