CAT Quashes 25-Year-Old Discharge Order Against J&K Govt Employee for Lack of Inquiry; Awards 50% Back Wages and Pension Benefits
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeev Gupta (Judicial Member) and Ms. Pragya Sahay Saksena (Administrative Member), has quashed the 25-year-old discharge order passed against a retired government employee and directed the release of 50% back wages along with pensionary and other retirement benefits.
Background
The applicant, Jahangir Khan, was serving as a Warden in the Prisons Department of Jammu and Kashmir and was promoted to the Selection Grade in 1994. In 1999, while posted at District Jail, Kathua, his wife, Maqsood Begum, filed a complaint alleging that the applicant had contracted three marriages without seeking prior government permission as required under the Jammu & Kashmir Employees Conduct Rules, 1971. Acting on this complaint, the authorities discharged him from service by an order dated 16.02.2000 without conducting any proper departmental inquiry.
The applicant challenged the discharge order before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, which granted him liberty to approach the appellate authority. Although he filed an appeal, it remained undecided for several years. Despite directions from the High Court in 2011 to dispose of the appeal within four weeks, the authorities failed to do so, compelling the applicant to file a contempt petition. Even after repeated representations and court orders, no inquiry or final decision was made, leading to the filing of the present Transferred Application before the Tribunal.
Tribunal’s Observations
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s discharge order was passed in complete violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Section 126 of the Constitution of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir, along with Rule 33 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The Bench emphasized that the protection available to government employees under these provisions mandates that no dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank can be made without holding a proper inquiry and providing the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.
The Tribunal found that the respondents had failed to conduct a departmental inquiry as required. The preliminary inquiry report by the Superintendent of District Jail, Kathua, was acted upon without serving proper charges or conducting a formal proceeding. It was also noted that even after an inquiry officer was appointed in 2004, the inquiry was never finalized and remained pending for years. The Tribunal termed the conduct of the authorities as “lackadaisical and arbitrary,” which caused serious prejudice to the applicant.
Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the respondents’ attempt to justify their action by citing procedural delays and referring to documents submerged during floods in 2014 was unacceptable. The record revealed that the authorities failed to comply with court directions and delayed the decision-making process for over two decades.
Relief Granted
Considering that the applicant has since superannuated from service, the Tribunal held that reinstatement was not possible. However, it acknowledged the illegal nature of the termination and the prolonged litigation caused by the respondents' failure to follow due process. Relying on the judgment of the J&K High Court in Prem Pal Singh v. Union of India [2024 (2) JKLLJ 422], the Tribunal ruled that full back wages could not be granted in the absence of evidence showing that the applicant remained unemployed or was not gainfully employed during the intervening period.
In view of this, the Tribunal directed that the applicant be paid 50% of the back wages from the date of discharge until the date of his retirement. Additionally, he is entitled to receive all pensionary and retirement benefits as per rules. The respondents were directed to complete this exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Failure to do so would result in the applicant being entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the due amounts.
The Tribunal allowed the Transferred Application, quashed the discharge order dated 16.02.2000, and also set aside the subsequent communications dated 21.02.2012 and 22.05.2013. While denying reinstatement due to the applicant’s retirement, the Tribunal directed the release of 50% of back wages along with full pensionary benefits.
Appearance
Aseem Sawhney, Advocate For Petitioner
Hunar Gupta, D.A.G., Advocate For Respondents
Cause Title: Jahangir Khan V. State through commissioner/secretary to Home Dept. & Anr.
Case No: T.A. No. 61/5590/2021
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeev Gupta [Judicial Member], Hon’ble Ms. Pragya Sahay Saksena [Administrative Member]
[Read/Download order]
