THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. versus FARID AHMAD TAK

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 02-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
v.
FARID AHMAD TAK
(Civil Appeal No. 4563 of 2019 etc.)
MAY 02, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Compulsory retirement  –  Justifiability of  –  Respondent
official compulsorily retired by State in terms of Art. 226(2) of Service
Regulations – On the basis of registration of an FIR alleging demand
and acceptance of bribe – Challenged by filing writ petition –  Single
Judge of High Court allowed the petition, holding that the decision
to compulsorily retire the Respondent was taken merely on basis of
FIR without taking into account APRs of Respondent and further
norms for arriving at decision with regard to integrity of Respondent
were not followed – Order of Single Judge confirmed by Division
Bench of High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent was never
caught red-handed while accepting bribe but the Division Bench
considered the matters on that premise, which was incorrect –  The
matter was also not considered from the perspective of Clause (iv)
of Art. 226(2) of Service Regulations – Therefore, matters remitted
to High Court for consideration afresh – Jammu and Kashmir Civil
Services Regulations  –  Art. 226 (2).
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matters to High Court,
the Court
HELD : 1. In the present cases the concerned respondent
official was never caught red handed while accepting bribe.
However, observations which are identical in all three matters
indicate that the Division Bench considered the matters from
that premise. The basic foundation was thus incorrect. The matter
from the perspective of Clause (iv) of Article 226(2) of the Jammu
and Kashmir Service Regulations was also not considered. The
orders of sanction in all these three matters highlight the acts of
commission and omission on part of the concerned respondents
as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and public
interest was compromised.  [Para 15] [11-B-D]
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
2. Thus, the basic premise, on the basis of which the matter
was considered by the Division Bench of High Court was incorrect
and secondly, the matter was also not considered from the
perspective of Clause (iv) of Article 226(2). Therefore, the
judgments and orders under appeal passed by the Division Bench
are set aside. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench
for fresh consideration.  [Para 16] [11-E-F]
State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah
(1999) 1 SCC 529 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 293 ;
Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada and Another (1992) 2 SCC
299 : [1992] 1 SCR 836 ; M/s. Rup Diamonds and
Others v. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 356 :
[1989] 1 SCR 13 ; Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare
Association v. Union of India and another (1989) 4
SCC 187 : [1989] 3 SCR 488 ; Narayan Chowedhury
and Others v. Union of India and Others (1996) 7 SCC
1 : 1995 [6] Suppl. SCR 178 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 293
referred to
Para 8
[1992] 1 SCR 836
referred to
Para 10
[1989] 1 SCR  13
referred to
Para 15
[1989] 3 SCR 488
referred to
Para 15
[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 178
referred to
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4563
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2017 of the High Court
of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in LPASW No. 182 of 2017.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4564 and 4565 of 2019.
M. Shoeb Alam, Ujjwal Singh, Gautam Parbhakar, Mojahid Karim
Khan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pramod Kr. Sharma, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Advs. for the
Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of three separate judgments passed by
the High Court of Jammu  Kashmir at Jammu  on 11.12.2017 in LPASW
No.182 of 2017, LPASW No. 159 of 2017 and LPASW No.180 of 2017.
3. The appeal arising out of decision in LPASW No. 182 of 2017
is taken as the lead matter and the facts leading to said appeal are
mentioned in detail.
4. The   Respondent   was   appointed   as   Junior   Engineer,
Power   Development Department, Jammu and Kashmir in the year
1985 and with the passage of time stood promoted  as  Assistant  Executive
Engineer. FIR  No. 30  of  2006  -VOJ  (Vigilance Organisation,   Jammu)
was registered against the Respondent at Police Station Vigilance
Organisation, Jammu in respect of offences punishable under Section
5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of Jam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.