JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed, seeking a writ certiorari, quashing Govt. Order No. 1268-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 issued by respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner had been prematurely retired from service. 2. However, with a view to understand the background in the light of which the present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to give a few material facts in brief: 3. Regulation 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations authorizes the Government to retire a govt. servant at any time after he has completed 22 years of service or attained the age of 48 years in public interest. This power is exercised by the Govt. to remove such government servants, who are considered as deadwood, inefficient or are of doubtful integrity and considered to be corrupt. 4. For facility of reference, 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations is reproduced hereunder: “226 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, require any Government servant other than the one working on a post which is included in Schedule II of these Rules, to retire at any time after he has completed 22 years/44 completed six monthly periods of qualifying service or on attaining 48 years of age; provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice (in one of the forms prescribed in annexure A and B hereto as to the case may be), to the Government servant at least 3 months before the date on which he is required to retire or 3 months of pay and allowance in lieu of such notice. Such a Government servant shall be granted pensionary benefits admissible under these rules on the basis of qualifying service put in by him on the ate of such retirement…………” 5. Norms have also been prescribed by the Govt. which are required to be followed by the screening committee while exercising powers under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, which are as follows: (i) The Annual Performance Report of the Non-Gazetted employees are neither normally written very carefully nor are they fully available in a large number of cases. which are required to be followed by the screening committee while exercising powers under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, which are as follows: (i) The Annual Performance Report of the Non-Gazetted employees are neither normally written very carefully nor are they fully available in a large number of cases. The Screening Committee should, therefore, consider the entire service record including all material and relevant information available on record about the employee before coming to any conclusion. (ii) The Government employees whose integrity is doubtful should be retired. For the purpose of establishing that the integrity of the Government servant is doubtful the following information/records could be considered. Number and nature of complaints received, if any, against the Government servant pertaining to doubtful integrity or corruption. Number and nature of various audit paras pending, if any, against the Government servant in which concerned government servant is found to be involved. Number and nature of vigilance cases pending inquiry, if any, against the Government servant. Adverse entries in the APRs concerning doubtful integrity, if any. Number and nature of departmental inquiries/preliminary inquiries, if any, which are going on against the concerned Government servant. Number and nature of administrative censure/warnings/punishment pertaining to corruption/doubtful integrity against the Government servant, if any. General reputation of the employees. (iii) Government employee who is found to be ineffective should be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such employees should be fitness/competence of the employee to continue in the post, which he is holding. If he is not found fit to continue in his present post, and than his fitness/competence to continue in the lower post from where he had been previously promoted should be considered. (iv) The specific norms for efficiency/effectiveness cannot be really laid down since they pertain to the nature of the work in each particular department would vary from department to department. However, these norms should be similar to norms laid down in the APRs of the employees concerned relating to his performance and efficiency/effectiveness. Specific norms on two to three parameters should be laid down for specific jobs. An illustrative list of norms is given below: For Teachers the pass percentage achieved by their students. For Revenue staff, norms relating to revenue work, such as mutations attested, jamabandies completed, revenue pass books issued etc. Specific norms on two to three parameters should be laid down for specific jobs. An illustrative list of norms is given below: For Teachers the pass percentage achieved by their students. For Revenue staff, norms relating to revenue work, such as mutations attested, jamabandies completed, revenue pass books issued etc. For engineering staff, norms relating to timely project implementations without time and cost over-runs etc. The concerned Administrative Department should, for each specific category of employees under its control, identify two to three key result areas/norms against which the efficiency/effectiveness of the Government employees should be considered. These norms should be communicated to the screening committee by the Administrative Department in advance. (v) While the entire record of the employee should be considered at the time of review, no employee should ordinarily be retired on grounds of ineffectiveness, if his services during the preceding 5 years, or where he has been promoted on higher post during 5 years his service in the higher post have been found satisfactory. (vi) No employee should ordinarily be retired on grounds of ineffectiveness, if in any event he would be retiring on superannuation within a period of one year from the date of considering of his case. (vii) This provision of Rule for premature retirement should not be used for reduction of surplus staff or an economy measure. Similarly, it should not be used to retire a Government servant on grounds of specific act of misconduct as a shortcut to initiating formal disciplinary proceedings against him, The appropriate authority shall not, however, be precluded to take action against a Government servant to retire him prematurely at the relevant time, even at that time, a specific act of misconduct has come to notice. (viii) Once a decision has been taken under the relevant service rule to retain a Government servant in service beyond the prescribed age or beyond the prescribed length of service, he shall ordinarily continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation. 6. In exercise of the powers vested in it, the Govt. with a view to weed out inefficient, the corrupt and the deadwood, constituted a Committee vide order dated 20.5.2015, which finally met on 21.11.2016. The said Committee consisted of the following: (A) Chief Secretary. (B) Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, (C) Principal Secretary to the Govt. Home Department (D) Commissioner/Secretary to the Govt., General Administration Department. with a view to weed out inefficient, the corrupt and the deadwood, constituted a Committee vide order dated 20.5.2015, which finally met on 21.11.2016. The said Committee consisted of the following: (A) Chief Secretary. (B) Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, (C) Principal Secretary to the Govt. Home Department (D) Commissioner/Secretary to the Govt., General Administration Department. (E) Secretary to the Govt., Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary affairs. Besides this, they also co-opted Secretary to the Government, Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, who participated and deliberated in the said meeting. Records of the committee have not been produced despite repeated orders in that regard. Objections stand filed by the respondent No. 1. From a perusal of the same, it appears that the committee came to the following conclusion: (i) that notwithstanding the fact that the APRs of the petitioner were not available is competent to take decision independent of the availability of the APRs. (ii) That the petitioner did not enjoy a good reputation in the public and overall perception of the general public is that he is a corrupt and delinquent official. (iii) That there was an FIR registered against the petitioner bearing No. 22/2009 with the Crime Branch, Jammu on the allegation of mis-appropriation of food-grains by the petitioner along with other officers/officials of the CAPD Department during the year 2009 7. Based upon the conclusions referred hereinabove, the Govt. passed order dated 21.11.2016 whereby the petitioner was pre-maturely retired from service w.e.f., 21.11.2016. 8. The order of pre-mature retirement is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. The basis of the challenge was that the order impugned had been passed arbitrarily without recording the requisite subjective satisfaction on the basis of the service record as was required to be done in terms of the provisions of Article 226(2) of the J&K Civil Services Regulations and the instructions appended thereto. It was urged that the order impugned had been passed solely on the ground that there was an FIR registered against the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the APRs of the petitioner were not available to the committee, which took a decision for pre-mature retirement of the petitioner and in the absence thereof, the order impugned would be unsustainable in law. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the APRs of the petitioner were not available to the committee, which took a decision for pre-mature retirement of the petitioner and in the absence thereof, the order impugned would be unsustainable in law. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that one of the officials, namely Chamel Singh, whose name also figured in the same FIR bearing No. 22/2009 had also filed petition, challenging his order of pre-mature retirement, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2018. 11. In State of Gujarat and another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 , the Apex Court held that with a view to decide as to whether the Govt. Servant had outlived his utility and was required to be compulsorily retired in public interest for maintaining an efficient administration, an objective view of his overall performance of that Govt. servant had to be taken and that was possible on the basis of his service record. What was stated by the Apex Court was as under: “24. The performance of a Govt. servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning the efficiency, honesty or integrity of a Govt. servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse entries or the overall categorization of the employee is poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a Govt. servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of “Integrity”. If this is missing the whole bundle would disperse. A Govt. servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. 25. Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the Govt. servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the adverse entries so that the Govt. servant? If this is missing the whole bundle would disperse. A Govt. servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. 25. Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the Govt. servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the adverse entries so that the Govt. servant? to whom the adverse entry is given, may have either opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his previous conduct justified such an entry, to improve his performance.” 12. It is relevant to point out at this stage that in the case (supra), the Apex Court was considering the order of pre-mature retirement of a Govt. servant against whom there were no adverse entries in the service record, yet the Committee while considering the case of the Govt. servant for pre-mature retirement, based only upon the FIRs lodged against the said Govt. servant formed an opinion that he was a person of doubtful integrity. 13. It was in those circumstances that the Apex Court held as under: “26…………Whether the integrity of an employee is doubtful or not, whether he is efficient and honest, is the function of the Appointing Authority or the immediate superior of that employee to consider and assess. It is not the function of the Review Committee to brand, and that too, off hand, an employee as a person of doubtful integrity…………….” 14. In Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand & ors, 2012 (3) SCC 580 , the Apex Court reiterated the principles pertaining to compulsory retirement and held as under: “34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the Courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACR's. There appears to be some discrepancy. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACR's. There appears to be some discrepancy. We say so for the reason that the appellant has produced the copies of the ACR's which were obtained by him from the High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a comparison of these two would positively indicate that the High Court has not faithfully extracted the contents of the ACRs. 36. The material on which the decision of the Compulsory retirement was based, as extracted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, and material furnished by the appellant would reflect that totality of relevant materials were not considered or completely ignored by the High Court. This leads to only one conclusion that the subjective satisfaction of the High Court was not based on the sufficient or relevant material. In this view of the matter, we cannot say that the service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory which would warrant premature retirement from service.” 15. Similar view has again been taken by the Apex court in Rajesh Gupta vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & ors, 2013 (3) SCC 514 . 16. Following the judgments (supra), even a Division Bench of this court in State of Jammu and Kashmir & ors vs. Janak Singh held in paragraphs 10 and 11 thus: “10…………… for purposes of analyzing the general reputation of the respondent, his character roll in the shape of APRs is one of the relevant considerations, which reveals the performance of the officer over a period of time as assessed by his superior officers under whose direct supervision the officer has been working. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that there was any adverse entry against the respondent. It is pertinent to note that respondent has earned promotion in the shape of selection grade in the year 2004. The circumstance dealing with the registration of two FIRs against the respondent dates back to the year 1997-98, which is remote in point of time and could not become the basis for his pre-mature retirement. Subsequent promotion of the respondent dilutes the allegations leveled against him. 11. The circumstance dealing with the registration of two FIRs against the respondent dates back to the year 1997-98, which is remote in point of time and could not become the basis for his pre-mature retirement. Subsequent promotion of the respondent dilutes the allegations leveled against him. 11. The other aspect on the basis of which the opinion could have been formulated was that the reputation of the respondent in the general public was not good. This is an area where no documents of his service profile regarding his reputation have been maintained by his superiors. Otherwise also no specific material has been brought before the Court except for the fact that two criminal cases have been registered against the respondent. This is an area which is purely based on hearsay. We could not look for some specific material regarding the adverse reports on the general reputation claimed to have been gathered from cross section of people. Since the Review Committee, with its given texture, was not a fact finding or investigating machinery, it could not be expected to directly gather the reports. Nothing has been reflected, regarding the contents of the complaints received from the general public on the basis of which opinion has been formulated. On records therefore, there is no such report or even a mention thereof, in absence whereof the observations of the Committee as aforesaid, only appear to reflect certain loose impressions, attributable to hearsay which appears to have been at the back of their mind while recommending the pre-mature retirement of the respondent. On Reputation 17. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the committee took into consideration the fact that the petitioner didn’t enjoy good reputation and overall perception of the general public is that he is a corrupt and delinquent official. 18. While the committee can always asses the integrity of a government servant and consider the reputation which he enjoys yet for assessing the same, there has to be some basis in the service records. Hearsay reputation or casual statements questioning the integrity of a person ought not to be considered for the same may be baseless or attributed for malafide purposes. Even for purposes of assessing the reputation of a government servant, the material must be cogent. The same must be in the shape of record which must then be considered in the correct perspective. Even for purposes of assessing the reputation of a government servant, the material must be cogent. The same must be in the shape of record which must then be considered in the correct perspective. Opinion regarding doubtful integrity and questionable reputation must emanate from an officer, who has had an opportunity to see the work and conduct of the officer from a close quarter on a day to day basis. Relying upon an opinion of Secretary of the Administrative Department, who might not have any firsthand information and experience of having seen and worked with the officer concerned would be both risky and uncalled for and would give credence to the saying ‘give a dog a bad name and then kill it.’ 19. In the present case, the committee has not discussed as to what was the source or material based upon which the petitioner was said to be not enjoying good reputation. If that be so, the order of pre mature retirement based upon any such assessment can only be said to be arbitrary and thus cannot be upheld on the legal touchstone. 20. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the law discussed hereinabove, it can be seen that the Committee constituted by the Govt. did not at all consider the relevant material and had taken a decision based only upon the fact that an FIR had been registered by the Crime Branch, Jammu against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, there was no justification for the State to pre-maturely retire the petitioner from service. 21. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the order impugned dated 21.11.2016 is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits.