Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Order
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed the petition of an Ex-serviceman re-engaged in the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed against him. The High Court held that in the face of the unequivocal admission on his part, there was no need for the Enquiry Officer to call for evidence from the Presenting Officer and provide the employee with an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
The Petitioner had approached the High Court questioning the order whereby a penalty of compulsory retirement with no effect on his pension/gratuity had been imposed upon him.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said, “In the face of aforesaid unequivocal admission on the part of the petitioner, there was no need for the Enquiry Officer to call for evidence/witnesses from the Presenting Officer and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, provides that the inquiring authority has to return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the employee pleads guilty. Once the petitioner, in the instant case, has admitted that he was having a subsisting marriage when he married second time and that he did not furnish any intimation to his employer, there is hardly any need to go for any further enquiry into the articles of charge framed against him.”
Advocate Ahmad Javaid represented the Petitioner while DSGI T. M. Shamsi represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
As per the case of the petitioner, he was working in paramilitary forces and later superannuated in the year 1999. He got re-engaged with the respondents in the Ex-Serviceman category in the year 2003 and was posted at the International Airport, Srinagar. The petitioner entered into wedlock with one lady, which ended in divorce. He entered into a fresh wedlock with another lady as per Muslim law, but the second marriage also ended in divorce.
It was submitted that one of the neighbors of the petitioner lodged a false and frivolous FIR against him, pursuant to which he was suspended. Thereafter, he was compulsorily retired from service in terms of the impugned order. According to the petitioner, he approached the respondents for reinstatement, but his request was not considered. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the charge levelled against the petitioner, which led to the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement upon him, was that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without divorcing his first wife and without informing the competent authority.
On a perusal of the documents placed on record by the respondents along with their reply, the Bench noted that the memorandum of charges had been served upon the petitioner. Before the framing of the memorandum of charges, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in the responses, the petitioner had remained silent about the fate of his first marriage. “It seems that it is because of this reason the respondents have framed memorandum of charges against the petitioner, as he did not explicitly admit the subsistence of his first marriage in his responses to two show cause notices issued to him”, it said.
The Bench found that the petitioner had responded to the enquiry report, in which he admitted that he had married twice. He further submitted that he had some dispute with his second wife because of which she had filed a complaint against him, and he had settled the matter with his second wife, who had agreed to withdraw the complaint against him.
The Bench further noticed that the petitioner had admitted the charge of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without informing the competent authority. In his response to the initial show cause notice, the petitioner had remained silent about the fate of his first marriage. Although in his response to memorandum of charges, he had taken a plea that he had divorced his first wife, yet when he was asked to produce proof in this regard, he responded by writing that because he had not divorced his first wife, there was no question of producing any proof or furnishing any information to his employer in this regard.
On the issue of nonpayment of pension, the Bench noted that once the criminal proceedings are going on against the petitioner, he cannot seek release of full pension at this stage. “The respondents have, therefore, rightly resorted to sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 by sanctioning provisional pension in favour of the petitioner”, it added.
Thus, finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Khan v. UT of J&K and Others (Case No.: WP(C) No.487/2024)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Ahmad Javaid
Respondent: DSGI T. M. Shamsi, Advocates Shagufta, Faizan
