The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently clarified the criteria for compulsory retirement of government employees under the J&K Civil Services Regulations.
It held that a decision to prematurely retire an employee cannot be solely based on committee recommendations. Instead, the competent authority must independently form a bona fide opinion that the retirement is in the institution’s interest.
In a Letters Patent Appeal, the bench overturned the earlier order of the Single Judge, which had quashed the petitioner’s compulsory retirement. The impugned order, issued under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, had prematurely retired the petitioner.
The bench analyzed the concept of compulsory retirement, emphasizing the need to eliminate inefficiency, corruption, dishonesty, and deadwood from government service. It reiterated that a bona fide opinion by the competent authority is essential for justifying compulsory retirement.
The judgment highlighted the employer’s obligation to produce relevant documents when an order is challenged as arbitrary or mala fide under Article 226. The court ruled that the service record of a government servant should not be considered privileged and inaccessible to the court.
Regarding involvement in criminal cases as a basis for compulsory retirement, the bench clarified that mere involvement does not establish guilt. The nature of the offense and the circumstances of each case should be carefully considered.
In this case, the court noted that the petitioner’s reputation had not been officially questioned, as no adverse remarks were found in the Annual Performance Reports. Moreover, the petitioner had been acquitted of the charges. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner’s compulsory retirement based solely on the registration of a criminal case was unwarranted.
Consequently, the State’s appeal was dismissed.
