[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Trinath Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 34865 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Trinath Mishra .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate
along with
Mr. J. Barik, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan
Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 04.12.2025 & Date of Judgment: 04.12.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. D.N. Mahapatra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner along with Mr. J. Barik, learned counsel and Mr. C.K.
// 2 //
Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp.
Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order
dtd.21.02.2022 so issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under
Annexure-3 and rejection of the prayer of the Petitioner for his
reinstatement vide order dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6. In terms
of order dtd.21.02.2022 so issued under Annexure-3, Petitioner was
given premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under
Rule 71(a) of the Odisha Service Code (in short Code)
w.e.f.21.02.2022.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner entered into service as
S.I. of Police, where he joined on 16.08.1985. While so continuing
Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police
w.e.f.28.02.2004 and to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
w.e.f.30.12.2011. Petitioner while so continuing was given further
promotion to the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police
w.e.f.31.12.2018.
4.1. It is contended that taking into account the exemplary service
career of the Petitioner, Petitioner was recommended for award of
President's Police Medal for distinguish service on the occasion of
// 3 //
Republic Day, 2020 on 05.11.2019 under Annexure-8 series. Not only
that Petitioner was also recommended to get the benefit of super time
scale in the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police vide order
dtd.16.11.2021 under Annexure-7 series.
4.2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
with such exemplary service career all through Petitioner because of
his implication in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/22
dtd.16.02.2022 under Sec. 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(b)/12 of the P.C. Act, his
name was recommended to the Review Committee to give premature
retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the
Code. The Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.19.02.2022 under
Annexure-9 series when recommended to give premature retirement to
the Petitioner, Petitioner was given such retirement vide the impugned
order dtd.21.02.2022 under Annexure-3.
4.3. It is contended that seeking his reinstatement with quashing of
order dtd.21.02.2022, Petitioner initially made a representation before
Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-4 and thereafter approached this
Court seeking its consideration in W.P.(C) No. 12883 of 2023. This
Court vide order dtd.01.05.2023 under Annexure-5, when directed for
its consideration, the same was rejected vide order dtd.07.08.2023
under Annexure-6.
// 4 //
4.4. It is the main contention of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner that save and except the implication of the Petitioner in
Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.13/2022 dtd.16.02.2022 Petitioner
was never proceeded with in any departmental or criminal proceeding
as he was given promotion all though with his name being
recommended to get the President's medal as well as to get the benefit
of super time scale of pay in the rank of Addl. Superintendent of
Police. It is accordingly contended that only on his implication in the
aforesaid vigilance case, Petitioner's name could not have been
recommended to the Review Committee for giving premature
retirement following Rule 71(a) of the Code.
4.5. Another submission was also made that by the time Petitioner was
so recommended to the Review Committee since he had attained the
age of 58 years, as per the guideline issued by the G.A. & P.G.
Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-D/4, Petitioner's name
could not have been recommended in view of the provisions contained
under Para 4 r.w. Para 7 of the said guideline. Para 4 and 7 of the
guideline reads as follows:-
"4. The cases of Group A & Group B Officers on their completing
30 years f qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on
their attaining 55 years of age as the case may be, on the 31st
March, 30th June, 30th September and the 31st December of a year
// 5 //
shall be reviewed by the Review Committee constituted in
pursuance of these instructions. Similarly the cases of Group-C
Officers and Group-D employees shall be reviewed on the 30th
June and the 31st December of the year by the relevant Review
Committee.
xxx xxx xxx
7. The cases of Govt. servants covered under paragraph-4 above
should be reviewed six months before their completing 30 years of
qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their
attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be as per the following
time schedule."
4.6. With regard to non-compliance of the provisions contained under
Para 4 & 7 of the guideline, reliance was placed to a decision of this
Court in the case of Ratnakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.
(W.P.(C) No. 14146 of 2022, disposed of on 28.10.2025. This Court
in Para 3.13 to 3.16 and 6.3 of the Judgment has held as follows:-
""3.13. It is contended that since by the time petitioner's
name was referred vide letter dated 10.11.2021 and the Review
Committee recommended to give Premature Retirement to
petitioner in its Proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11,
petitioner had already crossed the age of 50 years, his case could
not have been taken up by the Review Committee with such
recommendation. It is contended that once a thing has been
prescribed to be done in a particular manner, the same should be
done in that manner or not at all. In support of his aforesaid
submission, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following
decisions:
// 6 //
1. Bernard Francis Joseph Vs. Government of
Karnataka.
2. Independent Sugar Corporation Limited Vs.
Girish Sriram Jeneja
3.Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax.
3.14. In the case of Bernard Francis Joseph, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Paragraph-33 has held as under:-
"33.It is settled law that where a statute requires a
particular act to be done in a particular manner, the
act has to be done in that manner alone."
3.15. In the case of Girish Sriram Jeneja, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Paragraph-54 & 83 has held as under:-
54. xxx xxx xxx
In the present interpretive exercise, one also needs
to be mindful of the legal principle which says that
where a statute requires one to do a certain thing in
a certain manner, it must be done in that particular
manner or not done at all.
xxx xxx xxx
83. Whenever a statute prescribes that a particular
act is to be done in a particular manner and also
lays down that failure to comply with the said
requirement leads to a specific consequence, it
would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not
mandatory and the specified consequence should not
follow."
3.16. In the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Paragraph-49 has held as under:-
// 7 //
26. xxx xxx xxx
It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a
statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it
should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any
other way."
xxx xxx xxx
6.3. It is also found that by the time the Review Committee took
the decision in recommending Premature Retirement to the
petitioner on 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11, petitioner since had
completed the age of 50 years, in view of the provisions contained
under Para-4 read with Para-7 of the Resolution dated
24.09.2019 under Annexure-10, petitioner's case could not have
been taken up by the Review Committee. Placing reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited supra in the case of
Bernard Francis Joseph, Girish Sriram Juneja and Checkmate
Service P. Ltd., it is the view of this Court that case of the
petitioner could not have been taken up by the Review
Committee."
4.7. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court in the case of
Pratap Kumar Samal vs. State of Odisha & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 9554
of 2022 disposed of on 28.10.2025). This Court in Para 6.1 and 6.2 of
the said judgment has held as follows:-
"6.1. It is not disputed that such a decision to give premature
retirement to the Petitioner was taken, taking into account the
Instruction issued by the Government in the G.A and P.G
Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure4. As provided in the
said Instruction, case of Group-B and Group-C Officers can be
taken to give pre-mature retirement on their completing 30 years of
qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years and/or 55 years.
// 8 //
6.2. As provided under Para-7 of the said Instruction, such a
review is required to be made 6(six) months before completion of
the 30 years of qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years
and/or 55 years of age. It is not disputed that by the time the
Review Committee Page 35 of 39 recommended to give pre-mature
retirement to the Petitioner in its Proceeding dt.13.11.2021 under
Annexure-B/2, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years.
Therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Para-4 & 7 of
the Instruction and the decision in the case of Bernard Francis
Joseph, Girish Sriram Jeneja & Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. as
cited supra, it is the view of this Court that case of the Petitioner
could not have been taken up by the Review Committee on
13.11.2021, as by that time Petitioner had already attained the age
of 53 years. Therefore, the very basis to place the matter before
the Review Committee on 13.11.2021 with the recommendation so
made under Annexure-B/2 and the consequential action taken by
Opp. Party No.2 in issuing the impugned order dtd.18.11.2021
under Annexure-3, as per the considered view of this Court stands
vitiated."
4.8. It is accordingly contended that since by the Petitioner's name
was recommended, he had already attained the age of 58 years, in
view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Ratnakar
Mallick & Pratap Kumar Samal as cited (supra), Petitioner's name
could not have been recommended to the Review Committee with due
acceptance of the recommendation by issuing the impugned order
dtd.21.02.2022 under Annexure-3.
// 9 //
4.9. It is also contended that there was no public interest involved in
giving premature retirement to the Petitioner. Making all these
submissions learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that the impugned order issued under Annexure-3 further
confirmed vide order dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6 are not
sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
Though it is not disputed that Petitioner after his appointment was
extended with the benefit of promotion to different rank at different
point of time and his name was also recommended to get the
President's Medal as well as super time scale of pay. But it is
contended that since Petitioner was involved in Cuttack Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 13/22 dtd.16.02.2022 for the offence under Sec. 13(2) r.w.
13(i)(b)/12 of the P.C. Act and assets disproportionate to the tune of
Rs. 9,05,29,073/- was found against him i.e. around 50% above the
normal source of income, his name was recommended to the review
committee to give premature retirement to the Petitioner.
5.1. Since the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.19.02.2022
recommended to give premature retirement to the Petitioner, the same
was acted upon by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 with issuance of the
// 10 //
order dtd.21.02.2022 under Annexure-3. Stand taken in Para 10 & 11
of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
"10. That in reply to the averments made in Para-10 to
Para-13 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, the GA
& PG Department has issued circular No.27037/Gen dated
24/09/2019 prescribing the criteria and guideline for Premature
Retirement of Government servants. The aim of the Circular is
to weed out the officers and employees of doubtful integrity or
inefficiency from public service to ensure efficiency in
administration & not to protect the interest of the employee
having doubtful integrity. In the instant case, during raid by the
Vigilance organization, it is found that the petition possess huge
assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, which
he could not explain satisfactorily. This proves that his integrity
is not beyond doubt. A copy of the G.A. & P.G. Department
Circular No. 27037/Gen dt.24.09.2019 is annexed herewith as
Annexure-D/4.
The premature retirement is allowed to the petitioner
only for the sake of public interest under the provision of
Circular mentioned above as per the recommendation of the
Review Committee prescribed for the purpose.
11. That in reply to the averments made in Para-14 to
Para-16 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, the
review committee duly considered institution of Cuttack
vigilance PS case No. 13/2022 U/S 13(2) r/w 13(1) (b)/12 of PC
Act 1988 against the Sri Mishra for possession of huge assets
disproportionate to his known source of income, the conduct
which is unbecoming of a government servant and was of view
that his continuance in service would be amenance to public
service and injurious to public interest. Accordingly the
// 11 //
committee considering the above aspect and the law pronounced
by Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject & recommended
premature retirement of the petitioner with the observation that
his continuance will not be in public interest. Circular
No.27037/Gendated 24/09/2019 prescribing the criteria and
guideline for Premature Retirement of Government servants was
also kept in mind while recommending compulsory retirement of
the petitioner."
5.2. It is also contended that in terms of the earlier order passed by this
Court, Petitioner's claim was again considered by Opp. Party No. 1
and rejected vide order dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6. It is
accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found
with the impugned order.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was
appointed as S.I. of Police, where he joined on 16.08.1985. After such
joining in the Department, Petitioner was promoted to the rank of
Inspector of Police on 28.02.2004, to the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police on 30.12.2011 and to the rank of Addl.
Superintendent of Police on 31.12.2018. While so continuing,
Petitioner's name was also recommended for awarding President's
Medal in the Republic Day, 2020 vide Annexure-8. Not only that
Petitioner's name was also recommended for granting super time scale
// 12 //
of pay in the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police vide letter
dd.16.11.2021 under Annexure-7.
6.1. However, it is found that because of his implication in Cuttack
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/22 dtd.16.02.2022, his name was
recommended to the Review Committee to give premature retirement
in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code.
6.2. Since it is not disputed that by the Petitioner's name was so
recommended he had already attained the age of 58 years, placing
reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ratnakar Mallick
and Pratap Kumar Samal as cited (supra), this Court is of the view
that at that point of time Petitioner's name could not have been
recommended.
6.3. Since the provisions contained in the guideline issued by the G.A.
Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-D/4, has not been
followed, in view of the decisions of this Court as cited (supra), this
Court is of the view that Petitioner's name could not have been sent to
the Review Committee for its consideration in terms of Rule 71(a) of
the Code. Not only that there was no public interest involved to give
such premature retirement, just after initiation of the vigilance
proceeding.
// 13 //
6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that not
only the recommendation made by the Review Committee in its
proceeding dtd.19.02.2022 is illegal but also the impugned order of
premature retirement issued on 21.02.2022 under Annexure-3 and
rejection of the Petitioner's claim for reinstatement vide order
dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to
quash order dt.21.02.2022 under Annexure-3 and so also order
dt.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6 and quash the same accordingly.
6.5. Since as contended and during pendency of the writ petition
Petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on
31.10.2023, his date of birth being 27.10.1963, this Court directs Opp.
Party No. 1 to regularize the break period of service by taking the
Petitioner to have retired from his service on attaining the age of
superannuation on notional basis. However, provisional pension so
sanctioned and released after giving premature retirement vide order
dt.21.02.2022 till Petitioner attained the age of superannuation, shall
not be recovered. This Court held the Petitioner entitled to get all
service and retiral benefits as due and admissible on his retirement
with due adjustment of the provisional pension so released. This Court
directs Opp. Party No. 1 to pass a fresh order by extending all such
// 14 //
benefits as directed within a period of three (3) months from the date
of receipt of this order.
6.6. However, before parting with this case, it is the view of this Court
that instead of taking step to give premature retirement to an employee
in terms of the provision contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code, the
concerned employee should be dealt with initiation of appropriate
proceeding as provided under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. This Court is
of such view, as while giving premature retirement to an employee, he
is becoming entitled to get all the post retiral benefits including
pension in terms of Rule 41 of OCS (Pension) Rules 1992, which is
not in the better interest of the Govt. nor it is in public interest.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 4th December, 2025/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
