Jammu JULY-12-2023:- In a contempt petition filed by Bumesh Sharma JKAS seekingwho was prematurelty retired seeking implementation of judgment whereby the petitioner premature retirement was quashed and directed to resinstate the petitioner. Against the said judgnment SLP was filed that too was disimissed.
Justice Rahul Bharti of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court after hearing Sr. Adv Abhinav Sharma for the petitioner directed compliance be reported in the case by the Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., UT of Jammu and Kashmir, General Administration Department on the next date of hearing, failing which rule of court would stand framed against the incumbent posted serving as Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., UT of Jammu and Kashmir, General Administration Department.
When the matter was taken-up, Sr. Adv Abhinav Sharma submitted that in terms of an order dated 05.06.2023, a reference to a Special Leave Petition (SLP) pending before the Supreme Court of India has been adverted to. Post said order dated 05.06.2023, the SLP so referred therein has come to be dismissed by virtue of an order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs Bhumesh Sharma” thereby dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) no. 13665/2023 and, as such, this is now an end of road of excuses for the respondent to defer the compliance of the court judgment and as such, the respondent – Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., UT of Jammu and Kashmir, General Administration Department is left with no other excursion option except to come reporting letter and spirit compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in SWP no. 2140/2015.
It is worthwhile to mention here that Single Judge while quashing the premature retirement of Bumesh Sharma, observed that The formation of opinion in the instant case that petitioner is a deadwood, leading to passing of impugned order is not only arbitrary but suffers from the vice of non application of mind and is based on no material. In case the respondents were of the opinion that the petitioner has done the act of misconduct, they ought to have held a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. In the instant case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order of compulsory retirement is punitive in nature as while passing the order of compulsory retirement, the respondents have taken into account the alleged misconduct on behalf of the petitioner. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be passed as a shortcut to avoid the departmental inquiry, when such a course is more desirable. In the instant case, it appears that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed as a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiry. JNF