JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks quashing of Government Order No.1271-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to serve as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) till the actual date of retirement. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that consequent upon his appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II on 09.03.1988, he started performing his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. On 25.01.1989, petitioner was deputed to Rural Engineering Wing, Rajouri and he continued to discharge his duties till 31.10.1995. Petitioner submits that his services were highly appreciated by his superiors and there has not been even a single complaint about working of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner also has his credit the privilege of rendering services on the Line of Control (LOC). Due to his satisfactory performance, the petitioner was transferred and adjusted at Ravi Canal Construction Division, Kathua. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer (A.E.) on 28.12.2001 and Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 2005. 3. While the petitioner was working as AEE in PHE Division, Nowshera, an FIR bearing No.92/2006 came to be registered at Police Station, Nowshera against the petitioner and others on the complaint of a general public of village Pukhrani, Nowshera. After completion of the investigation in the aforesaid FIR and pursuant to the sanction accorded to the prosecution of the petitioner vide Govt. order No.08-GAD (Vig) 2012 dated 13.03.2012, the challan was produced in competent Court of law. The challan is stated to be pending. While the trial in the criminal case against the petitioner is sub-judice, the government, Government vide its Order No.1271-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016, impugned in this petition, ordered retirement of the petitioner prematurely from service. According to the petitioner, the basis of the order impugned is pendency of criminal case against the petitioner. 4. Although, the respondents have not filed any objection/counter affidavit but learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the committee after considering the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that due to his persistent misconduct and the overall perception of the general public about the integrity of the petitioner he had rendered himself unfit to be retained in service and, therefore, recommended retirement of the petitioner under Article 226(2) of J&K Civil Services Regulations, 1956. 5. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order impugned whereby the petitioner has been retired compulsorily is outcome of malafide and extraneous consideration. He further submits that the relevant material, including the APRs and other service record which was required to be considered by the Committee for considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement has either not been placed before the Committee or has not been considered while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is generally known to have bad reputation and his continuance in service may not be in the larger interest of the public. He, therefore, sought quashing of the order impugned. To buttress his submissions, learned senior counsel referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents justified the compulsory retirement of the petitioner by submitting that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in corruption cases registered against him, his integrity has become doubtful and his further continuance in service is highly pre-judicial to public interest and efficiency in administration. Learned counsel further submits that apart from his involvement in criminal cases of corruption, Committee has observed that the petitioner did not enjoy good reputation due to his consistent conduct over a period of time; therefore, his continuance in service was not in public interest. 7. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The issues which have been raised in the instant writ petition were considered threadbare, discussed and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of J&K and others v. Abdul Majid Wani (LPA No.95/2017) decided on 06.10.2017 and after considering the relevant Rules, Guidelines, Govt. Instructions and law on the subject held that an employee who is found to have indulged in corrupt practices, has to be dealt with iron hands. Such a public servant, if found guilty, has to be punished and shown the door and not compulsorily retired, allowing him to get away with all the retiral benefits. The compulsory retirement provision has been enacted to achieve a different purpose, i.e., to weed out inefficient and corrupt public servants whose continuance in service is prejudicial to public interest. Such a public servant, if found guilty, has to be punished and shown the door and not compulsorily retired, allowing him to get away with all the retiral benefits. The compulsory retirement provision has been enacted to achieve a different purpose, i.e., to weed out inefficient and corrupt public servants whose continuance in service is prejudicial to public interest. This, however, has to be adjudged upon on the basis of the work and conduct of the employee during his whole service career, though attaching more importance to his work and conduct during last some years preceding his compulsory retirement. This power based on the pleasure doctrine of the sovereign should not be used for collateral purpose. 9. From a perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, which recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken only in view of the registration of FIR No.92/2006 registered at P/S Nowshera, Rajouri and apart from the aforesaid FIR no other record was either placed before the Committee or the Competent Authority. 10. As a matter of fact, APRs/ACRs of the petitioner were not considered by the Committee on the plea that these were not available. This itself speaks about the non-application of mind by the Establishment Committee which apparently arrived at a conclusion without looking into the relevant record. The petitioner has placed on record copies of the APRs and the same have not been denied by the respondent by filing any reply affidavit. There is, however, a statement in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, upon which much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the respondent. The statement needs to be noticed and reads thus:- “the employee does not enjoy a good reputation in the public and the overall perception of the general public is that he is a corrupt official.” There was no material available with the Committee or before the competent authority to come to such a conclusion nor is there any indication in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee as to how the Committee arrived at the aforesaid opinion. 11. 11. That being the position, it is evident that the APRs/ACRs of the petitioner as also his other service record were not placed before the Establishment Committee which arrived at the conclusion for retiring the petitioner prematurely on the basis of pendency of criminal charge against the petitioner and that the reputation of the petitioner was not good. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, fully covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Majid Wani’s case (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith along with all consequential benefits.