Criminal proceedings alone can’t justify compulsory retirement: CAT

Srinagar, Aug 31: Observing that pendency of FIR or criminal proceedings alone cannot justify compulsory retirement, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has set aside a government’s order compulsorily retiring an official, Deputy Registrar in the Cooperative Societies, in 2021.

59-year-old Syed Ashaq Hussain had petitioned through his counsel Faizan M Bhat challenging the governments order dated 30.12.2021 by which he was compulsorily retired from service under Clause (a) of Article 226(2) of the J&K Civil Services Regulations, 1956.

The counsel submitted that the order was arbitrary and stigmatic, passed solely because of the pendency of a criminal case, without consideration of his long and unblemished service record. “The entire APRs of the applicant, which consistently graded him as “Outstanding,” were ignored, “he said. Moreover, the counsel contended that the termination order having been passed at the fag end of the petitioner’s career, was malafide, socially stigmatic, and violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. On February 6, 2019, the Office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, received an application from River Jhelum Cooperative Society, addressed to the Secretary, Cooperative Department, seeking a loan for establishing a Satellite Town, according to Hussain’s Plea

The application, under the directions of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, was forwarded by him to the State Cooperative Bank.

Meanwhile, the ACB on  March 8, 2020 filed a case and in the course of investigation, a supplementary challan came to be filed against Hussain. Subsequently Hussain was placed under suspension on September 26, 2020, served with charges. Hussain submitted his reply thereto on June 28, 2021. However, instead of concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the government chose to prematurely retire him.

After hearing the petitioner's counsel and the government through its counsel, a division bench set aside the order.

“In the present case, it is a matter of record that the applicant was retired solely because of FIR No.04/2020. The Department itself had initiated an inquiry and issued charges but abandoned the process midway and issued the impugned order,” the tribunal said, adding, “there is no satisfaction record on the basis of APRs or service record that the applicant had become inefficient”. Rather, the record shows consistent appreciation of his work, it said.The tribunal said the decision, therefore, was not founded on objective material relating to service performance but only on criminal allegations yet to be proved in trial.

Relying on SC Judgments , the tribunal held the impugned order as arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to law, and allowed Hussain’s plea. “Since the applicant has already superannuated in February 2023, he shall be deemed reinstated till that date, and respondents shall release all consequential service and retiral benefits as per law within two months,” it ordered.