Orissa High Court
Ratnakar Mallick vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 28 October, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
AFR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14146 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India and Odisha Service Code.
..................
Ratnakar Mallick .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:25.08.2025 and Date of Judgment:28.10.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
// 2 //
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that, this
Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this
petition and
i. Rule NISI calling the record and after hearing the
Opp. Parties as to allow the same, issue writ/writs in
the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other
further writ/direction and set aside the order of
premature retirement dated 16.03.2022 under
Annexure-1, Review Committee Proceeding dated
15.03.2022 under Annexure-11 and direct
reinstatement of the petitioner with all service and
financial benefits.
ii. And/or pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just,
fit, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the present case."
3. It is contended that petitioner entered into service
as a CSI of Police, where he joined on 01.09.1998
basing on the office order issued on 07.08.1998 and
the Notification issued by the Odisha Sub-ordinate
Staff Selection Commission on 24.10.1997 and
27.12.1997 respectively.
3.1. It is further contended that while so continuing as
a CSI of Police, petitioner on being found eligible and
on being recommended by the DPC, was promoted to
the rank of Inspector of Police vide office order dated
24.02.2009. Petitioner accordingly joined in the
promotional post of Inspector of Police on 04.03.2009.
// 3 //
3.2. It is further contended that even though similarly
situated Inspector of Police were promoted to the rank
of Deputy Superintendent of Police vide Notification
dated 17.04.2021 under Annexure-3, but petitioner's
claim was not considered on the ground of pendency of
a Disciplinary Proceeding.
3.3. However, subsequently vide letter dated
10.11.2021 under Annexure-7, Superintendent of
Police, Angul forwarded the name of the present
petitioner along with 7 (seven) other Inspector of Police
for Premature Retirement, basing on the letter issued
on 30.10.2021. Accordingly, in the proceeding of the
Review Committee held on 15.03.2022 under
Annexure-11, the Committee recommended for
Premature Retirement of the petitioner which was acted
upon by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 with issuance of the
impugned order dated 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1.
Petitioner was given Premature Retirement taking
recourse to the provisions contained under Clause(a) of
the Rule-71 of the Odisha Service Code (In short
// 4 //
"Code"). Petitioner was allowed to retire w.e.f.
16.03.2022 in terms of the said provisions.
3.4. While assailing the impugned order of Premature
Retirement issued on 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1
and the recommendation made by the Review
Committee in its proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under
Annexure-11, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that during his continuance as
Inspector of Police on his promotion in the year 2009,
petitioner faced 2 (two) proceedings while continuing in
Puri District vide Puri District Proceeding No.3/2016
and 1/2017 and 2 (two) other proceedings while
continuing in the District of Deogarh vide Deogarh
District Proceeding No.11/2018 and 13/2018.
3.5. It is contended that even though in Puri District
Proceeding No.3/2016 and 1/2017, petitioner was
imposed with the punishment of one black mark vide
order dated 10.12.2021, but the said order was never
communicated to the petitioner and by that time his
name was already referred vide letter dated 10.11.2021
// 5 //
under Annexure-7 to give him Premature retirement.
The proceedings pending against the petitioner in Puri
District Proceeding No.3/2016 and 1/2017 were
finalized vide order dated 10.12.2021 with imposition of
one black mark each after his name was referred by the
Superintendent of Police-O.P. No.4 on 10.11.2021 vide
Annexure-7. However, the orders of punishment so
passed on 10.12.2021 in both the proceedings were
never communicated to the petitioner and thereby
depriving the petitioner to challenge such order of
punishment before the Appellate Authority.
3.6. It is further contended that the proceeding
initiated in Deogarh District Proceeding No.11/2018
was also finalized with award of one black mark vide
order dated 15.03.2022, i.e. the date when the Review
Committee recommended to give Premature Retirement
to petitioner in its Proceeding under Annexure-11.
Such order of punishment passed on 15.03.2022 was
also never communicated prior to passing of the
impugned order dated 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1.
// 6 //
The proceeding initiated in Deogarh District Proceeding
No.13/2018 was pending against petitioner by the time
the Review Committee in its proceeding dated
15.03.2022 under Annexure-11 recommended to give
Premature Retirement to petitioner which was acted
upon by the Govt. with passing of the impugned order
dated 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1.
3.7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner while assailing the order of Premature
Retirement so issued under Annexure-1 basing on the
recommendation of the Review Committee under
Annexure-11, contended that the proceeding initiated
in Puri District Proceeding No.3/2016 and 1/2017 were
only disposed of with passing of the order of
punishment of one black mark vide order dated
10.12.2021 and other proceeding in Deogarh District
Proceeding No.11/2018 was also disposed of with
award of one black mark vide order dated 15.03.2022
under Annexure-11, only to have the materials against
the petitioner to be placed before the Review Committee
// 7 //
and O.P. No.1. Since petitioner was never imposed with
any punishment prior to 10.11.2021, there was no
occasion to refer petitioner's name to give Premature
Retirement vide letter dated 10.11.2021 under
Annexure-7.
3.8. Since only after referring his name to give
Premature Retirement vide letter dated 10.11.2021
under Annexure-7, all the 3 (three) proceedings in Puri
District Proceeding No.3/2016 and 1/2017 and
Deogarh District Proceeding No.11/2018 were finalized
with imposition of one black mark vide order dated
10.12.2021 and 15.03.2022, this clearly shows the
malafide intention of the Opp. Parties in preparing the
basis to give Premature Retirement to the petitioner.
3.9. It is also contended that since order of
punishment so passed in all the 3 (three) proceedings
on 10.12.2021 and 15.03.2022 were never
communicated prior to passing of the impugned order
dated 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1, petitioner was
deprived to move the Appellate Authority and thereafter
// 8 //
the Revisional Authority challenging such order of
punishment. Therefore, in absence of any challenge
made to such order of punishment by the petitioner,
order of punishment so imposed cannot be taken to
have attained finality in the eye of law and it could not
have been taken as a basis to give premature
retirement to the petitioner.
3.10. A further submission was also made that by
the time petitioner's name was referred vide letter dated
10.11.2021 under Annexure-7, since petitioner had
already crossed the age of 50 years, his case could not
have been taken up by the Review Committee in its
proceeding dated 15.03.2022.
3.11. To buttress his aforesaid submission, reliance
was placed to the guideline issued by the G.A.
Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-10, by
which the Govt. in the G.A. and P.G. Department
framed the guidelines for Premature Retirement of
Govt. servant taking recourse to the provisions
contained under Rule-71(a) of the Code.
// 9 //
3.12. It is contended that as provided under Para-7
of the Resolution dated 24.09.2019 under Annexure-
10, case of the Govt. servants should be reviewed 6(six)
months before they complete 30 years of qualifying
service or attain the age of 50 years and/or 55 years
age as the case may be. Para-4 of the guideline
provides the timeline within which such review can be
made. Para-4 and 7 of the Guideline dated 24.09.2019
reads as follows:-
"4. The cases of Group-A & Group-B Officers on 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, on the 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and the 31st
December of a year shall be reviewed by the Review
Committees 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
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.
Sl. No. Quarter in which review Cases of Officer/Employee Dateline of furnishing the
is to be made completing 30 years of qualifying report to the G.A. & P.G.
service on attaining 50 years of age Department
and on their attaining 55 years of
age
1. January to March July to September of the same year 15th April
2. April to June October to December of the same year 15th July
3. July to Sept January to March of the next year 15th October
// 10 //
4. October to December April to June of the next year 15th January of the next
year
A register of officers/employees who are completing
30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age
and on their attaining 55 years of age is to be maintained.
The register should be scrutinized at the beginning of every
quarter by a senior officer in the Department/ Office and the
review undertaken according to the above schedule.
In addition to the above, the Secretary of the
Administrative Department is also empowered to constitute
internal Committees to scrutinize all the cases required to be
reviewed in each quarter and finalize the specific cases to
be reviewed. These Internal Committees will ensure that the
service record of the employees being reviewed, along with
a summary bringing out all relevant information, is
submitted to the review committees at least one month
before the due date of review.
The administrative Departments shall furnish reports
of every review conducted quarterly in respect of their own
offices as well as all the offices functioning under their
administrative control to the G.A & P.G Department in the
format prescribed in Annexure-VI."
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
// 11 //
support of his aforesaid submission, learned Senior
Counsel relied on the following decisions:
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
// 12 //
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:-
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."
3.17. It is also contended that as provided under
Para-8 of the Resolution dated 24.09.2019 under
Annexure-10, unless the Review is made prior to 6 (six)
months of completing 30 years of qualifying service or
attaining the age of 50 years, no review of the case is
entertainable till attaining the age of 55 years. Para-8
of the guideline dated 24.09.2019 reads as follows:-
"8. Once an employee's case has been reviewed and he
has been found by the competent authority to be
deserving of continued employment after attaining 50
years of age, there shall be no further review of his case
till he attains 55 years of age. Similarly, the case of an
employee who was no prematurely retired in pursuance
of the review conducted on his attaining 55 years of age
shall not be reviewed thereafter. If, however, review
was deferred or not conducted, the case may be
reviewed in the meeting held after records were
available."
// 13 //
3.18. It is also contended that since the order of
punishment imposed in the 3 (three) proceedings vide
order dated 10.12.2021 and 15.03.2022, were never
communicated to the petitioner, those punishments
cannot be taken as a ground to give Premature
Retirement to the petitioner. It is further contended
that as provided under the Police Manual against such
order of punishment with imposition of one black
mark, an appeal lies under PMR 852 and thereafter a
revision. It is further contended that as provided under
PMR 836, a police personnel can be imposed with
punishment of reduction in rank or compulsory
retirement or removal/dismissal, only when he entails
9 (nine) black marks. PMR 836 read as follows:-
"836. Effect of nine black marks - Nine black marks
shall entail reduction in rank or compulsory retirement or
removed or dismissal. Whenever any Member of the Police
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, has been
awarded nine black marks, proceedings shall be drawn up
against him with a view to awarding any of the above
punishments."
3.19. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner
was imposed with 3 (three) black marks in Puri District
Proceeding No.3/2016 and 1/2017 and Deogarh
// 14 //
District Proceeding No.11/2018, imposition of 3 (three)
black marks does not entail the authority to give
compulsory retirement to the petitioner by referring his
name to the Committee. Not only that since the
impugned punishment in three of the proceedings were
imposed after referring the case of the petitioner vide
order dated 10.12.2021 in Puri District Proceeding
No.3/2016 and 1/2017 and vide order dated
15.03.2022 in Deogarh District Proceeding No.11/2018
which is not disputed, the punishment so imposed in
those three proceedings, cannot be taken as a ground
to give Premature Retirement to the petitioner. But the
Opp. Parties with malafide intention and to see that
petitioner is given Premature Retirement not only
recommended his name vide letter date 10.11.2021
under annexure-7, but also the Review Committee
without proper appreciation, recommended his name
vide the impugned Proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under
Annexure-11 so acted upon by the Govt. with passing
of the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 under
Annexure-1.
// 15 //
3.20. A further submission was made that even
though the Review Committee in its proceeding dated
15.03.2022, came to a conclusion that continuance of
the petitioner is against public interest, but no such
material was available with the Review Committee
taking into account the order of punishment passed in
the 3 (three) proceedings after referral of his name vide
letter dated 10.11.2021 under Annexure-7. It is also
contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in (1990) 3 SCC 504 (Ram Ekbal
Sharma Vrs. State of Bihar and Another) the view
taken by the Review Committee is perse illegal. Hon'ble
Apex Court in Para-32 of the said judgment has held as
follows:-
"32. On a consideration of the above decisions the legal
position that now emerges is that even though the order
of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous
language without making any imputations against the
government servant who is directed to be compulsorily
retired from service, the court, if challenged, in
appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the
order is based on any misconduct of the government
servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide
and not with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere
form of the order in such cases cannot deter the court
from delving into the basis of the order if the order in
question is challenged by the concerned government
servant as has been held by this Court in Anoop Jaiswal
case [(1984) 2 SCC 369 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 256 : AIR 1984
SC 536] . This being the position the respondent-State
cannot defend the order of compulsory retirement of the
// 16 //
appellant in the instant case on the mere plea that the
order has been made in accordance with the provisions
of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code which prima
facie does not make any imputation or does not cast any
stigma on the service career of the appellant. But in view
of the clear and specific averments made by the
respondent-State that the impugned order has been
made to compulsorily retire the appellant from service
under the aforesaid rule as the appellant was found to
have committed grave financial irregularities leading to
financial loss to the State, the impugned order cannot but
be said to have been made by way of punishment. As
such, such an order is in contravention of Article 311 of
the Constitution of India as well as it is arbitrary as it
violates principles of natural justice and the same has
not been made bona fide."
3.21. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this
Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mohpatra Vs. State
of Odisha and Others(W.P.(C) No.37932 of 2021),
decided on 31.10.2023. This Court in Para-42 of the
said judgment has held as follows:-
"42. Before drawing the final conclusion in the present
case on the basis of the factual background, this Court
would once again like to refer to the landmark judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs.
Umedbhai M.Patel reported in AIR 2001 SC 1109. In
para-11 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has laid down the principle for the guidance of the review
committee. On a careful scrutiny of the principles laid
down in para-11, this Court observed that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically observed that wherever
the service of the public servant is no longer useful to the
General Administration of the Office, he/she can be
compulsorily retired from service for the sake of public
interest. However, the same does not appear to be the
case so far the petitioner is concerned. Recognising the
service of the Petitioner he has been given many letters of
appreciation/ allocades and he has also been given the
additional charge of Superintendent of Excise. Therefore,
by no stretch of imagination it could be construed that he
is a dead wood and needs to be chopped off.
// 17 //
3.22. Making all these submissions and relying on the
decisions as cited (supra), learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner contended that order of
Premature Retirement given to the petitioner vide the
impugned order dated 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1,
basing on the recommendation of the Review
Committee in its Proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under
Annexure-11 are not sustainable in the eye of law and
requires interference of this Court.
4. Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
on the other hand made his submission basing on the
stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. While
supporting the impugned order, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate contended that in view of the provisions
contained under Para-10, 11, 12(e) and 13 (ii) (iii) of the
guideline dated 24.09.2019 issued under Annexure-10,
petitioner's further continuance was found against
public interest and accordingly the Review Committee
in its proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11,
recommended to give Premature Retirement to the
// 18 //
petitioner. Accepting such recommendation, petitioner
was given Premature Retirement in exercise of the
power conferred under Rule-71(a) of the Code vide the
impugned order dated 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1.
Para-10, 11, 12(e) and 13 (ii) (iii) of the Guideline reads
as follows:-
"10. It will not be in public interest to retain an employee
in service if-
(a) he is clearly lacking in integrity, or
(b) although his integrity is not in doubt, his physical or
mental condition is such as to make him inefficient for
further service, or
(c) even though his work in a icwer grade was
satisfactory, he clearly lacks in standard of efficiency
required to discharge the duties of the post he presently
holds.
11. The objective of the review is to weed out persons
of doubtful integrity or inefficiency from public service. In
order however that no such cecision is taken arbitrarily or
without very careful appraisal of facts, the review
committee shall, wherever it recommends premature
retirement of an employee, record the reasons of its
findings in adequate detail.
xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
12(e). Even un-communicated in the confidential record
can also be taken into consideration.
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx
13.(ii) As far as considering integrity of an employee is
concerned, actiors or decisions taken by the employee
which do not appear to be above board, complaints
received against him or suspicious property transactions
for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate
departmental proceedings, may be taken into account.
The following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case S. Ramachandra Raju is State of Odisha passed
// 19 //
while uphoiding compulsory retirement need to be kept in
view at the time of deciding each case.
"The officer would live by reputation built around him. In
an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence
to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from
service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his
continuance in service would be a menace to public
service and injurious to public interest."
(iii) The reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government
servant may also form the basis for compulsory
retirement. As per the judgernent of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of U.P And Others Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain,
Appeal (civil) 2983 of 2002:
"If conduct of a government employee becomes
unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the
efficiency in public services, the Government has an
absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in
public interest.""
4.1. Reliance was also placed to the stand taken in
Para-5 of the counter. Para-5 of the counter affidavit
reads as follows:-
"5. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-2(a)
& (b) of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the
Premature Review Committee have considered the entire
service record including all material and relevant information
available on record about the petitioner and recommended
his case for premature retirement. It is pertinent to mention
here that the work, conduct & performance of applicant has
always remained not appreciable and the services of
applicant have always been vague by the seniors. As a token
of confirmation all the following previous record of the
applicant may please be scrutinized in depth.
1. PURI DISTRICT PROCEEDING NO. 3/2016 WAS DRAWN
UP AGAINST INSPECTOR RATNAKAR MALLIK FOR HIS
GROSS MISCONDUCT AND WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE AND
DERELICTION OF DUTY
While the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police, in
Pipili Police Station, Puri District, he registered Pipili PS case
No.484 dtd 12.12.2012 U/s.450/395/506 IPC basing on the
// 20 //
written report of Uttam Das and took up investigation of the
case. During investigation of the case, he failed to comply the
basic requirements of the investigation for which the accused
persons were acquitted from the Court of law. The Hon'ble
Asst. Sessions Judge, Puri after trial in the said case has
categorically observed in his judgment pronounced on dtd
13.10.2014 that the investigation was conducted in a
slipshod manner with malafide intention. The I.O. did not
comply the basic ingredients of alleged offence i.e. he had not
issued injury requisition in respect of injured witness, did not
seize any motor cycle in connection with this case and kept
the investigation open as per the charge sheet. But till
conclusion of the trial, neither the prosecution prayed for time
to submit any additional charge sheet nor any document was
filed by the prosecution to show that any further investigation
was going on. He had not verified any dealership documents
of the petrol pump nor do any cash book and daily collection
register of the petrol pump. He also did not examine the
person who typed the FIR in DTP process. As such, he
willfully and grossly neglected in his lawful duty.
In spite of the sensational and gruesome incident, he had
investigated the case in a perfunctory manner committing
commissions to show favour to the accused persons and also
shield the accused persons of a heinous crime as a result of
which the accused persons have been acquitted in the court
of law which has grossly affected the administration of
criminal justice system. Hence, Sri Mallik was asked to
explain for such gross negligent conduct and callous attitude
towards investigation. The explanation submitted by him was
found unsatisfactory.
It is thus evident that, he being a responsible public
servant and IIC of the PS failed to discharge his duty properly
and did not maintain integrity, decorum of conduct and
devotion of duty as required under Rule 3 of Govt. servants'
Conduct Rule, 1959.
For such lapses the Puri district Proceeding No. 3/2016
was drawn up against Inspector Ratnakar Mallik for his
gross misconduct and willful negligence and dereliction of
duty.
That, it is pertinent to mention here that, after examining the
inquiry report and reviewing the evidence available on record
as well as considering the explanation submitted by the
charged officer with the reason thereof, the then Disciplinary
Authority-D.G. & I.G. of Police, Odisha, Cuttack had imposed
the punishment of "One Black Mark" vide Order dated
10.12.2021.
// 21 //
2. PURI DISTRICT PROG. NO.1/2017 DRAWN UP AGAINST
SHRI RATNAKAR MALLIK, EX. IIC, PIPILI PS, FOR HIS
GROSS MISCONDUCT AND DERELICTION OF DUTY
While he was posted at Pipili PS as IIC, one Smita Rani
Mohanty, a teacher of Ukundeswar Deuli Primary School had
sent one written complaint to Pipili PS by registered post
alleging to have been Dandamukundapur and his associates.
Though it was raped by one Sukanta Kumar Panda,
Sarpanch, received on 16.4.2012, the IIC did not pay any
attention to the report, even though the report revealed
commission of a cognizable offence. Subsequently, on the
direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, the IIC
registered a case vide Pipili PS case No.234 dtd 01.06.2012
U/s 448/294/323/354/376(g)/506/34 IPC. Abnormal delay
in registration of the case on the FIR submitted by the victim
was outright violation of law. Inspector Ratnakar Mallik
violated the process of law by not registering FIR in time. Sri
Mallik was asked to explain for such gross negligent conduct
and dereliction in duty. Being aggrieved by such inaction the
victim appeared before the Hon'ble Court of OHRC for justice.
The commission was pleased to observe that, the conduct of
IIC Sri Mallik is reprehensible. He being a responsible Senior
Police Officer violated the mandatory provisions of law i.e.
154 Cr. P.C. Thereby the human rights of the victim were
violated and Sri Mallik neglected to perform his lawful duties.
The commission further observed that, the victim/petitioner
had to undergo mental suffering because of the inaction of
Pipili police for which she had to knock the doors of the
highest court of the State i.e. Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
Accordingly the commission recommended to the Govt. to pay
compensation of Rs.20, 000/- to the victim u/s 18(a) (i) of the
Protection of Human Right Act, 1993. The aforesaid amount
so paid is to be realized from the salary of Inspector
Ratnakar Mallik. Such inaction of the IIC Ratnakar Mallik has
tarnished the image of police in the eyes of general public.
For such lapses the Puri district Proceeding No. 1/2017 was
drawn up against Inspector Ratnakar Mallik for his gross
misconduct and willful negligence and dereliction of duty.
Hence, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into
account, the then Disciplinary Authority-D.G. & I.G. of Police,
Odisha, Cuttack had imposed the punishment of "One Black
Mark" vide Order dated 10.12.2021.
3. DEOGARH DISTRICT PROCEEDING NO.11/2018 WAS
DRAWN UP AGAINST INSPECTOR RATNAKARMALLIK
FORHIS GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND DERELICTION OF
DUTY
While he was posted as IIC, Deogarh PS, on the written report
of Complainant Abhimanyu Majhi, Sio Bailochan Majhi (CT
// 22 //
GD No.041663547) of CRPF, he registered Deogarh P.S. case
No.45 dtd 15.02.2016 U/s 307 IPC/27 Arms Act and himself
took up During course of investigation of the case.
investigation, he seized one AK-47 folded rifle having butt
No.29 and body No.AE-447071 used by ASI B. Nageswar
Rao along with magazine No.68 and 26 rounds of catridge of
7.62 mm x 39 mm on 15.02.2016 at 6.35 AM. But he did not
take any steps for sending the seized AK-47 rifle to RFSL,
Sambalpur for Ballastic Examination, though it was
categorically mentioned in the Supervision Note of DSP, DIB,
Deogarh to do so. The S.O. has also instructed to send the
blood stained clothes and other exhibits to RFSL for chemical
examination, but Inspr. Mallik remained silent and did not
carry out the instructions. Though the seized AK-47 Rifle is
kept in Deogarh PS Malkhana since 2016, he did not take
any steps for making entry regarding deposit of the said AK-
47 rifle in the Malkhana Register of the PS.. He has also
failed to submit a single CD in the case. The above acts of
omission amounts to gross negligence and dereliction of duty
on the part of 1.O. Inspr. RatnakarMallik.
For such lapses the Deogarh district Proceeding No. 11/2018
was drawn up against Inspector Ratnakar Mallik for his
gross misconduct and willful negligence and dereliction of
duty.
Hence, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into
account, the then Disciplinary Authority-D.G. & I.G. of Police,
Odisha, Cuttack had imposed the punishment of " One Black
Mark" vide Order dated 15.03.2022.
4. DEOGARH DISTRICT PROCEEDING NO. 13/2018 WAS
DRAWN UP AGAINST INSPECTOR RATNAKAR MALLIK
FOR HIS GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND DERELICTION OF
DUTY
During his incumbency as IIC, Deogarh PS, he registered and
took up the investigation of the following Cog. Cases. During
Crime Meeting for the month of October, 2017 held on
07.11.2017, it came to light that, he did not submit a single
C.D. to the superior officers in any of the cases including
important SR cases entrusted to him and did not show any
case record in the Crime meeting. He was directed by S.P,
Deogarh to come up with the case record for review vide
Deogarh district memo No.4653/DCRB dtd 5.9.2017 in
pursuance to the observation note of DIGP, NCR, Talcher vide
letter. No. 4894/Cr dt 23.08.2017, but he defied the order
and did not turn up. He was directed to close the cases in the
consecutive crime meetings, but he[6:20 PM, 10/22/2025]
Basudev Swain: neglected the investigation of the cases as
commented by S.P., Deogarh in the District Crime meeting
proceeding 18.10.2017.
// 23 //
List of cases taken up investigation
Sl. No. P.S. case reference.
1. Deogarh PS Case No.21 dtd 25.01.2014 U/s 406/409 IPC.
2. Deogarh PS Case No.45 dtd 15.2.2016 U/s 307 IPC/27
Arms Act.
3. Deogarh PS Case No. 203 dtd 8.8.2016 U/s 420/379
IPC/660/66(D) I.T. Act.
4. Deogarh PS Case No.237 dtd 25.9.2016 U/s
420/467/468/120(B) IPC.
5. Deogarh PS Case No. 289 dtd 9.12.2016 5. U/s 379 IPC.
6. Deogarh PS Case No. 292 dtd 15.12.2016 U/s 379 IPC/66
©/66(D) I.T.Act.
7. Deogarh PS Case No.32 dtd 30.1.2017 U/s 395 IPC/25
Arms Act.
8. Deogarh PS Case No.71 dtd 16.3.2017 U/s 419/420
IPC/66 (D) I.T. Act.
9. Deogarh PS Case No.81 dtd 24.3.2017 U/s.419/420
IPC/66(D) I.T. Act.
10. Deogarh PS Case No.95 dtd 17.04.2017
U/s.354/354(B)/354(D)/34 IPC.
11. Deogarh PS Case No.128 dtd 25.5.2017
U/s.498(A)/294/506 IPC.
12. Deogarh PS Case No.129 dtd 27.5.2017 U/s 447/435
IPC.
13. Deogarh PS Case No.141 dtd 12.06.2017 U/s 420 IPC.
14. Deogarh PS Case No.150 dtd 26.06.2017 U/s
363/366(A)/376(2)(i)(n)/506 IPC/6 POCSO Act/9/10 Child
Marriage Prohibition Act.
15. Deogarh PS Case No.163 dtd 18.07.2017 U/s 420
IPC/66 0/66 (D) 1.T. Act.
16. Deogarh PS Case No.168 dtd 23.07.2017 U/s
379/411/420/468/471/201 IPC.
// 24 //
Being a responsible Police Officer, he failed to investigate the
above noted cases and did not submit up to date CDs which
amounts to gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
For such lapses, Inspector Ratnakar Mallick was asked to
submit his preliminary explanation. Though, he received the
charge on 21.11.2018, he neither submitted his show cause
nor sought time even after lapse of one month. Hence, the
proceeding was entrusted to Ms. Anupama James, IPS, the
then Supdt. of Police, Deogarh is appointed as Enquiring
Officer by name.
After conducting the proceeding enquiry, the Enquiring
Officer submitted the findings holding the charged officer
'guilty' of the charges. In this regard the Proceeding file has
been presented before the Disciplinary Authority for his
review and decision.
That it is commonly said that the above noted record of the
individual works as a mirror and reflects his conduct,
character and modus-operandi of working. The petitioner was
recruited in the department in the year 1998 as Sl of Police
and since the date of enlistment did not perform the assigned
responsibilities with sincerity & keen devotion to the entire
satisfaction of superiors leaving behind no room for praise.
It is to note here that, an employee in the uniformed service
presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is
expected to uphold the law and on the contrary, such a
service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. The
standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed
service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore,
any worthwhile effort did not comply with the superior
authority's orders can be seriously viewed and the ultimate
decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.
Three successful departmental proceedings against the
petitioner during his tenure justify his premature retirement."
4.2. It is also contended that in view of the provisions
contained in Para-4 read with Para-7 of the guideline
dated 24.09.2019, there is no bar not to take up
Review even after completion of 50 years of age and/or
55 years age. Even though by the time petitioner's
name was referred on 10.11.2021 under Annexure-7,
// 25 //
petitioner had already crossed the age of 50 years, his
date of birth being 21.12.1970 and the Committee by
the time took the decision in its proceeding dated
15.03.2022, petitioner had attained the age of 51 years,
but in view of the provisions contained in Para-4 read
with Para-7 of the guideline, such an action is
permissible.
4.3. In support of the submission, reliance was placed
to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Gujarat Vrs. Umedbhai M. Patel, reported in
AIR (2001) SCC 1109. Para-11 of the said judgment
has held as follows-
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now
crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly
summarized thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer
useful to the general administration, the officer can be
compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to
be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of
the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off
dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be
passed after having due regard to the entire service record
of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record
shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in
passing such order.
// 26 //
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record
can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed
as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such
course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse
entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in
favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a
punitive measure."
4.4. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this
Court passed in the case of Dola Gobinda Samal Vrs.
State of Odisha and Another in OJC No.13528 of
1997, decided on 16.12.2008. This Court in Para-31
and 32 of the said judgment held as follows:-
"31. In view of the above, the law can be summarized
that washed of theory does not have any universal
application and it will have some relevance while
considering the case of government servant for
further promotion but certainly not in a case where
the employee is being assessed by the Reviewing
Authority as to whether he is fit to be retain in service
or require to be given compulsory retirement. Thus,
we do not find force in the submissions made in this
regard as the same are not found acceptable.
32. The case of the Petitioner is required to be
examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal
propositions. It is evident from the record that
Petitioner had generally not been assessed as a good
officer. He had been awarded adverse entries
throughout his career and his integrity was recorded
as doubtful several times. Such entries do not stand
washed off merely on the ground that Petitioner was
granted promotions even after recording of such
entries. Some of the adverse entries had been
expunged by this Court while considering his
representation against such entries. Petitioner had
also been put under suspension but after being
exonerated in the Departmental Proceedings, he was
// 27 //
granted the required relief. So, it cannot be accepted
that Petitioner had not been treated fairly and in
accordance with law."
4.5. Reliance was also placed to a decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra
Achaya Vrs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa and
Another. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-4 and 9 of the
said judgment has held as follows-
"4. For appreciating the contention raised by the
learned Senior Counsel, we would first refer to the
relevant part of Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code:
"71. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the other
clauses of this Rule the date of compulsory retirement
of a government servant, except a ministerial servant
who was in government service on 31-3-1939 and
Class IV government servant, is the date on which he
or she attains the age of 58 years subject to the
condition that a review shall be conducted in respect
of the government servant in the 55th year of age in
order to determine whether he/she should be
allowed to remain in service up to the date of
completion of the age of 58 years or retired on
completing the age of 55 years in public interest:
Provided....
(a-1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule
(a) of Rule 71, judicial officer belonging to the State
Judicial Services, who, in the opinion of the High
Court of Orissa, have a potential for continued useful
service, shall be retained in service up to the age of
60 years.
[Note.--The potential for continued utility shall be
assessed and evaluated by appropriate Committee of
Judges of the High Court, constituted and headed by
the Chief Justice and the valuation shall be made on
the basis of the officer's past record of service,
character roll, quality of judgments and other
relevant matters. The High Court should undertake
and complete the exercise in case of an officer about
to attain the age of 58 years well within time by
// 28 //
following the procedure for compulsory retirement
under the service rules applicable to him and give
him the benefit of the extended superannuation age
from 58 to 60 years only, if he is found fit and eligible
to continue in service. In case he is not found fit and
eligible, he shall be compulsorily retired on his
attaining the age of 58 years. This exercise should be
undertaken well in advance before an officer attains
the age of 58 years.]
9. It is apparent that the aforesaid directions of this
Court are faithfully incorporated in the aforequoted
Rule. Therefore, the High Court was fully justified in
following the aforesaid Rules in evaluating the record
of the petitioner for his continued utility in the judicial
service."
4.6. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this
Court rendered in the case of Debendra Nath Behera
Vrs. The Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt. and Others,
W.P.(C) No.9716 of 2021, decided on 11.02.2024. This
Court in Para-6 and Para-16.16 and 18 has held as
follows:-
"6. Refuting all the averments and contentions of the
petitioner and in reply to the arguments advanced by Sri
Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, Smt.
Saswata Pattnaik, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, would
submit that it cannot be denied or gainsaid that the
power is vested in the Government of Odisha in Home
Department to invoke Rule 71 of the OSC
notwithstanding pending proceeding under the OCS
(CCA) Rules. While functioning as Commandant (in-
Charge), he abused his position by instructing the Drivers
of the vehicle [TATA Starbus bearing Registration No.OD-
05-AD-0954] and the Havildar to offload wooden planks
at his desired place for personal use. Such grave
misconduct is treated as detrimental to public interest.
The Review Committee decided the case of the petitioner
in such fact-situation and dispensed with lengthy process
of the trial and the disciplinary proceeding particularly
when the petitioner completed more than 30 years of
// 29 //
service and was at the age of 56 years. Therefore, the
recourse adopted by the Home Department cannot be
doubted or questioned in the writ jurisdiction.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
16.16. The present case is of the nature "doubtful
integrity" as opposed to "inefficiency" on account of
adverse remarks much less uncommunicated adverse
remarks. The petitioner herein having alleged to have
abused his official capacity in transportation of wooden
planks in the official vehicle with the help of staff of
Battalion, the conduct being considered by the Review
Committee to be of "doubtful integrity" recommended
premature retirement, which the Government of Odisha in
Home Department accepted. Nothing is cited by the
petitioner to demonstrate that the opposite parties have
taken into consideration extraneous material and allowed
him to retire prematurely as a punitive measure so as to
hold that the decision of the Review Committee fell foul
of.
Xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx
18. In the wake of the above, finding no infirmity nor
illegality in the Order dated 05.01.2021 of the
Government of Odisha in Home Department (Annexure-6)
passed in exercise of powers conferred under clause (a)
of Rule 71 of the Odisha Service Code accepting the
recommendation for premature retirement of the petitioner
vide Proceedings of the Review Committee dated
29.12.2020, this writ petition is dismissed, but in the
circumstances there shall be no order as to costs."
4.7. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate placing reliance on
the decisions as cited by him and the stand taken in
the counter affidavit, contended that since petitioner
was imposed with punishment of one Black Mark each
in 3 (three) different proceedings and in the other
proceeding petitioner never filed his show-cause though
was served with the charge on 21.11.2018, taking into
account such conduct of the petitioner, the Committee
// 30 //
duly recommended to give Premature Retirement to the
petitioner in public interest in its proceeding dated
15.03.2022 under Annexure-11. Govt.-O.P. No.1 also
rightly accepted such recommendation to give
Premature Retirement to the petitioner vide the
impugned order dated 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1.
4.8. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on instruction also
provided the information furnished by the
Superintendent of Police, S.P. Head Quarters Cuttack,
Odisha, Cuttack vide his letter dated 21.08.2025,
justifying the action taken against the petitioner.
5. To the stand taken in the counter affidavit and
the instruction provided vide letter dated 21.08.2025,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that in view of the provisions contained
under Rule-71(a) of the Code, review of the
performance of an employee for his further continuance
is required to be undertaken prior to 6 (six) months of
his attaining the age of 50 years or 30 years of
qualifying service which is earlier. Since by the time,
// 31 //
petitioner's name was recommended vide letter dated
10.11.2021, no punishment was imposed in any of the
4 (four) proceedings initiated against petitioner, there
was no occasion to give Premature Retirement to
petitioner on the ground that petitioner's continuance
is against public interest. Rule-71(a) of the Code reads
as follows:-
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in the other
clause of this rule the date of compulsory retirement of
Government servant, except a ministerial servant who
was in Government servant on the 31st March, 1939
and Class IV Government servant, is the date on which
he or she attains the age of 58 years subject to the
condition that a review shall be conducted in respect of
the Government servant in the 55 years of the age in
order to determine whether he or she should be allowed
to remain in service up to the date of the completion of
the age of 58 years or retired on completing the age of
55 years in public interest:
Provided that a Government servant may be
retired from service any time after completing 30 years'
qualifying service or on attaining the age of fifty years,
by giving a notice in writing to the appropriate authority
at least three months before the date of which he
wishes to retire or by giving the said notice to the said
authority before such shorter period as Government
may allow in any case. It shall be open to the
appropriate authority to withhold permission to a
Government servant who seek to retire under this rule,
if he is under suspension or if enquiries against him are
in progress. The appropriate authority may also require
any officer to retire in public interest any time after he
has completed thirty years' qualifying service or
attained the age of fifty years, by giving a notice in
writing to the Government servant at least three months
before the date on which he is required to retire or by
giving three months pay and allowances in lien of such
notice:
// 32 //
Provided further that the Allopathy Medical
Officers belonging both periphery and Teaching Cadre
under Health and Family Welfare Department shall be
retained in service up to the age of sixty years.
(a-1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-
rule (a) of Rule 71, Judicial Officers belonging to State
Judicial Services, who, in the opinion of the High Court
of Orissa, have a potential for continued useful service,
shall be retained in service up-to-the age of sixty years."
5.1. It is also contended that save and except the
initiation of the 4 (four) proceedings with imposition of
the punishment in 3 of the proceedings subsequent to
referral of his name to give Premature Retirement,
there is no adverse entry in the service career of
petitioner from his initial date of his joining as a CSI of
Police in the year 1998 and his continuance as
Inspector of Police on promotion all through.
5.2. Since at no point of time, petitioner was ever
communicated with any adverse CCR/PAR save and
except, the punishment imposed in 3 (three)
proceedings just prior to taking up of the issue by the
Review Committee, the malafide action of the Opp.
Parties is tale tale and such Premature Retirement
given to the petitioner is not only illegal and arbitrary
// 33 //
but also outcome of malafide and not sustainable in
the eye of law.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds
that petitioner entered into service as a CSI of Police,
where he joined on 01.09.1998. While so continuing,
petitioner was promoted to the Rank of Inspector of
Police, where he joined on 25.02.2009. It is also found
that while continuing as an Inspector of Police,
petitioner was proceeded with in four nos. of
Disciplinary Proceeding vide Puri District Proceeding
No.3/2016 and 1/2017 and Deogarh District
Proceeding No.11/2018 and 13/2018. As found and
which is not disputed, petitioner was imposed with
punishment of one black mark vide order dated
10.12.2021 in Puri District Proceeding No.3/2016 and
1/2017.
6.1. Similarly, petitioner was imposed with punishment
of one Black Mark vide order dated 15.03.2022 in
Deogarh District Proceeding No.11/2018. Petitioner
// 34 //
which is also not disputed, was never communicated
with order dated 10.12.2021, so passed in Puri District
Proceeding No.3/2016 and 1/2017. By the time
petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order
dated 15.03.2022 in Deogarh District Proceeding
No.11/2018, petitioner's name was already
recommended by the Review Committee to give
Premature Retirement to the petitioner in its
proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11.
6.2. Since petitioner was never given an opportunity to
challenge the order of punishment so imposed on
10.12.2021 in Puri District Proceeding No.3/2016 and
1/2017 and order dated 15.03.2022 in Deogarh
District Proceeding No.11/2018, such punishment as
per the considered view of this Court, could not have
been taken into account by the Review Committee in
recommending the case of the petitioner for Premature
Retirement. Not only that no document has been
enclosed by the State-Opp. Parties, showing
communication of any adverse CCR/PAR against the
// 35 //
petitioner during his entire service career, till he was
given such Premature Retirement vide order dated
16.03.2022 under Annexure-1.
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.
6.4. Stand taken in Para-5 of the counter affidavit
regarding inaction of the petitioner in not taking up the
investigation and not submitting the Case Diary in
// 36 //
different P.S. cases during his continuance at Deogarh,
was also not available with the Review Committee while
making the recommendation to give Premature
Retirement to the petitioner in its proceeding dated
15.03.2022 under Annexure-11.
6.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis and placing
reliance on the decision in the case of Umedbhai M.
Patel so followed in the case of Ajit Kumar
Mohapatra, this Court is of the view that there was no
occasion to give Premature Retirement to the petitioner
and there is no public interest involved. Therefore, this
Court is inclined to quash the recommendation made
by the Review Committee in its proceeding dated
15.03.2022 under Annexure-11 and the impugned
order dated 16.03.2022 so issued by O.P. No.1 under
Annexure-1. While quashing the recommendation as
well as the impugned order, this Court directs O.P.
No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in his services with
passing of an appropriate order.
// 37 //
6.6. Since the petitioner because of the impugned
order, remained out of employment w.e.f. 16.03.2022,
the break period in service be regularized on notional
basis and the same be taken as qualifying service for
all other purpose. This Court directs O.P. No.2 to
complete the entire exercise within a period of 3 (three)
months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 28th October, 2025/Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
