Summary
Three challenges concerning compulsory retirement were remitted to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court for fresh consideration. The Division Bench had proceeded on an incorrect common premise that the officials were caught accepting bribes, and had not examined the prescribed engineering-staff performance criterion in light of prosecution-sanction material concerning wrongful State loss. The Supreme Court did not finally uphold the retirement orders. Summary dismissal of other special leave petitions did not settle the merits.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench had considered the actual allegations and relevant service-regulation criterion.
- Whether summary dismissal of special leave petitions in other retirement cases concluded the issue.
Provisions considered
- Article 226(2), particularly clause (iv), Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services RegulationsRequired consideration of the relevant performance norms; the engineering-staff criterion and prosecution-sanction material had not been examined by the Division Bench. (¶ 13–16)
Held
- None of these three officials had been caught red-handed accepting a bribe. Identical observations to that effect in all three judgments showed that the Division Bench proceeded on an incorrect factual foundation. (¶¶ 8, 11, 15–16)
- The sanction orders highlighted alleged acts causing wrongful loss to the State and compromising public interest. The cases required examination from the perspective of the engineering-staff criterion under Article 226(2)(iv), which had been omitted. (¶ 13–16)
- Summary dismissal of special leave petitions in other cases did not conclude the merits of the issue. Fresh consideration of these appeals was necessary. (¶ 15–17)
Result
Appeals allowed to the extent of setting aside the three Division Bench judgments. LPASW Nos. 182, 159 and 180 of 2017 restored and remitted to the High Court Division Bench for fresh consideration. No costs.