// 15 //
4.4. In support of his submission, reliance was placed
to the decision in the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel so
relied on by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner as well as the following decisions:
1. Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. CDMO,
Baripada 1992 (2) SCC 299.
2. S. Ramachandran Raju Vs. State of
Orissa, 1994 (Suppl.) 3 SCC 424.
3. State of U.P and Others Vs. Bijay
Kumar Jain, AIR 2002 SC 1348.
4. State of Orissa, Vs. Rama Chandra
Das 1996 (5) SCC 331.
5. K. Kandaswamy V. Union of India,
AIR 1996 SC 277.
4.5. In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Paragraph-32 has held as under:-
32. We may not be understood as saying either that
adverse remarks need not be communicated or that
the representations, if any, submitted by the
government servant (against such remarks) need not
be considered or disposed of. The adverse remarks
ought to be communicated in the normal course, as
required by the rules/orders in that behalf. Any
representations made against them would and should
also be dealt with in the normal course, with
reasonable promptitude. All that we are saying is that
the action under F.R. 56(j) (or the rule corresponding
to it) need not await the disposal or final disposal of
such representation or representations, as the case
may be. In some cases, it may happen that some
adverse remarks of the recent years are not
communicated or if communicated, the representation
received in that behalf are pending consideration. On
// 16 //
this account alone, the action under F.R. 56(j) need
not be held back. There is no reason to presume that
the review Committee or the government, if it chooses
to take into consideration such uncommunicated
remarks, would not be conscious or cognizant of the
fact that they are not communicated to the
government servant and that he was not given an
opportunity to explain or rebut the same. Similarly, if
any representation made by the government servant
is there, it shall also be taken into consideration. We
may reiterate that not only the Review Committee is
generally composed of high and responsible officers;
the power is vested in government alone and not in a
minor official. It is unlikely that adverse remarks over
a number of years remain uncommunicated and yet
they are made the primary basis of action. Such an
unlikely situation, if indeed present, may be
indicative of malice in law. We may mention in this
connection that the remedy provided by Article 226 of
the Constitution is no less an important safeguarded.
Even with its well-known constraints, the remedy is
an effective check against mala fide, perverse or
arbitrary action.
4.6. In the case of S. Ramachandra Raju, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Paragraph-9 has held as under:-
9. It is thus settled law that though the order of
compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the
government employee is entitled to draw all retiral
benefits including pension, the Government must
exercise its power only in the public interest to
effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood
needs to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity
in public service needs to be maintained. The exercise
of power of compulsory retirement must not be a
haunt on public servant but must act as a check and
reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service
and free from corruption and incompetence. 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
// 17 //
menace in public service and injurious to public
interest. The entire service record or character rolls or
confidential reports maintained would furnish the
backdrop material for consideration by the
Government or the Review Committee or the
appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality
of the facts and circumstances alone, the Government
should form the opinion that the government officer
needs to be compulsorily retired from service.
Therefore, the entire service record more particular the
latest, would form the foundation for the opinion
and furnish the base to exercise the power under the
relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government
officer. When an officer reaching the age of
compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this
Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment
nor meet the family burdens with the pension or
other benefits he gets and thereby he would be
subjected to great hardship and family would be
greatly affected. Therefore, before exercising the
power, the competent appropriate authority must
weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest
as against the individual interest. On total
evaluation of the entire record of service if the
Government or the governmental authority forms the
opinion that in the public interest the officer needs
to be retired compulsorily, the court may not
interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise
of power but the court has power and duty to
exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of
appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to
consider whether the power has been properly
exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala
fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or
arbitrary in retiring the government officer
compulsorily from service.
4.7. In the case of Vijay Kumar Jain, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Paragraph-16 has held as under:-
16. Withholding of integrity of a government employee
is a serious matter. In the present case, what we find
is that the integrity of the respondent was withheld
by an order dated 13-6-1997 and the said entry in
the character roll of the respondent was well within
ten years of passing of the order of compulsory
// 18 //
retirement. During pendency of the writ petition in the
High Court, the U.P. Services Tribunal on a claim
petition filed by the respondent, shifted the entry from
1997-98 to 1983-84. Shifting of the said entry to a
different period or entry going beyond ten years of
passing of the order of compulsory retirement does
not mean that vigour and sting of the adverse entry is
lost. Vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped
out, merely it is relatable to 11th or 12th year of
passing of the order of compulsory retirement. The
aforesaid adverse entry which could have been taken
into account while considering the case of the
respondent for his compulsory retirement from
service, was duly considered by the State
Government and the said single adverse entry in
itself was sufficient to compulsorily retire the
respondent from service. We are, therefore, of the
view that entire service record or confidential report
with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll
can be taken into account by the Government while
considering a case for compulsory retirement of a
government servant.
4.8. In the case of Ram Chandra Das, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Paragraph-7 has held as under:-
7. It is contended for the respondent that adverse
entries for the two years referred to earlier and
pending departmental proceedings would not be
sufficient to compulsorily retire the government
servant on the premises that after promotion they
would become irrelevant and minor penalty was
imposed. It is true that the government servant was
allowed to cross the efficiency bar to enable him to
avail of the benefits to draw higher scale of pay after
crossing the efficiency bar. The adverse remarks
made are after promotion. Even otherwise, the
remarks form part of service record and character roll.
The record of enquiry on conduct also would be
material. Though minor penalty may be imposed on
given facts and circumstances to act of misconduct,
nevertheless it remains part of the record for overall
consideration to retire a government servant
compulsorily. The object always is public interest. The
material question is whether the entire record of
service was considered or not? It is not for the
// 19 //
court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the
Government to compulsorily retire the government
servant is justified or not. It is for the Government to
consider the same and take a proper decision in that
behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the
Government is required to consider the entire record
of service. Merely because a promotion has been
given even after adverse entries were made, cannot
be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the
government servant could not be ordered. The
evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant
as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is
whether upon that state of record as a reasonable
prudent man would the Government or competent
officer reach that decision. We find that self-same
material after promotion may not be taken into
consideration only to deny him further promotion, if
any. But that material undoubtedly would be
available to the Government to consider the overall
expediency or necessity to continue the government
servant in service after he attained the required
length of service or qualified period of service for
pension. It is also made clear that in this case
adverse entries were made only after promotion and
not earlier to promotion. Compulsory retirement is not
a punishment. He is entitled to all the pensionary
benefits.
4.9. In the case of K. Kandaswamy, this Court in
Paragraphs-8 to 10 has held as under:-
8. As seen in the light of documents and in the light
of the specific permission sought by the appellant
himself on the basis of the special report submitted
by the State Government, the Government of India
through its appropriate committee reached the
conclusion that in view of the doubtful integrity it
would not be desirable in the public interest to retain
the appellant in service. Accordingly, they have
compulsorily retired the appellant from service.
Compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal
or removal from service within the meaning of Article
311 of the Constitution. It is neither punishment nor
visits with loss of retiral benefits; nor does it cast
stigma. The officer would be entitled to the pension
that he has actually earned and there is no
diminution of the accrued benefits. The object of
// 20 //
compulsory retirement of the government employee
is public interest. If the appropriate authority bona
fide forms that opinion, the correctness thereof on
merits cannot be challenged before courts, though it
may be open to the aggrieved employee to impugn it.
But the same may be challenged on the ground that
requisite opinion is based on no evidence or has not
been formed or the decision is based for collateral
grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.
9. While exercising the power under Rule 56(j) of the
Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authority has to
weigh several circumstances in arriving at the
conclusion that the employee requires to be
compulsorily retired in public interest. The
Government is given power to energise its
machinery by weeding out dead wood, inefficient,
corrupt and people of doubtful integrity by
compulsorily retiring them from service. When the
appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that
compulsory retirement of the government employee
is in the public interest, court would not interfere
with the order. In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of
Orissa [1994 Supp (3) SCC 424 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 74
: (1994) 28 ATC 443] , a Bench of this Court to which
one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member,
considered the entire case law and held that: (SCC
pp. 430-31, para 9)
"... the Government must exercise its power only in
the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the
service. The dead wood needs to be removed to
augment efficiency. Integrity in public service needs
to be maintained. The exercise of power of
compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public
servant but must act as a check and reasonable
measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from
corruption and incompetence. 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. The entire
service record or character rolls or confidential
reports maintained would furnish the backdrop
material for consideration by the Government or the
Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On
consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances alone, the Government should form
// 21 //
the opinion that the government officer needs to be
compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the
entire record more particularly, the latest, would
form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the
base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to
compulsorily retire a government officer."
10. Higher the ladder the officer scales in the
echelons of service, greater should be the
transparency of integrity, honesty, character and
dedication to duty. Work culture and self-discipline
augment his experience. Security of service gives fillip
to accelerate assiduity to stay in line and measure up
to the expected standards of efficiency by the
government employee. Thereby, they ultimately aid to
achieve excellence in public service. The security of
service provided by Article 311 of the Constitution
and the statutory rules made under proviso to Article
309 would thus ensure to remove deficiency and
incompetence and augment efficiency of public
administration. The rights -- constitutional or
statutory -- carry with them corollary duty to
maintain efficiency, integrity and dedication to public
service. Unfortunately, the latter is being overlooked
and neglected and the former unduly gets
emphasised. The appropriate Government or the
authority would, therefore, need to consider the
totality of the facts and circumstances appropriate in
each case and would form the opinion whether
compulsory retirement of a government employee
would be in the public interest. The opinion must be
based on the material on record; otherwise it would
amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power.
4.10. Placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit and the implication of the Petitioner in the
Vigilance Proceeding where assets to the tune of
Rs.14,88,91,194.16p. was found disproportionate to the
known source of income of the Petitioner, Petitioner
taking into account the Guideline issued under
// 22 //
Annexure-4 and the Guideline issued by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Umed Bhai M Patel has been
rightly given pre-mature retirement which requires no
interference.
4.11. It is also contended that even though by the time
the Writ Petition was filed challenging the impugned
order dt.18.11.2021, Petitioner was already placed under
suspension because of his implication in the Vigilance
case vide order dt.11.11.2021 under Annexure-A/2, but
the said fact was never brought to the notice of this Court
and it amounts to suppression of material facts. Since
the Petitioner has not approached this Court in disclosing
his implication in the Vigilance Proceeding, it is to be
held that Petitioner has not approached this Court with
clean hands, and accordingly not eligible and entitled to
get any relief as prayed for.
5. To the submission made by the learned Sr.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, Mr. B.
Routray, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
// 23 //
Petitioner made further submission basing on the stand
taken in the rejoinder affidavit so filed.
5.1. While reiterating his submission that question of
premature retirement can only be taken into
consideration prior to 6(six) months of attaining 30 years
of qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years
and/or 55 years and case of the Petitioner was taken up
for such consideration while the Petitioner had already
attained the age of 53 years, learned Sr. Counsel made
further submission contending inter alia that, even
though Petitioner was implicated in the Vigilance case
and was placed under suspension, but by the time
Petitioner was given pre-mature retirement vide the
impugned order, neither final form had been submitted
nor cognizance had been taken by the competent Court.
Petitioner because of his mere implication, when was
arrested, Petitioner was placed under suspension vide
order dt.11.11.2021 under Annexure-A/2. It is
accordingly contended that non- disclosure of the said
fact while filing the Writ Petition, cannot be taken as
suppression of material fact. Since Petitioner has not yet
// 24 //
been charge-sheeted in the Vigilance Proceeding, it
cannot be held that integrity of the Petitioner is doubtful.
5.2. It is also contended that the incidents taken into
consideration by the Review Committee in its proceeding
under Annexure-B/2 were never communicated to the
Petitioner at any point of time. Not only that, on the face
of such conduct of the Petitioner starting from 1990
which was taken into consideration by the Review
Committee, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of
promotion vide order dt.19.06.2007 under Annexure-2.
5.3. Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of
Umed Bhai M. Patel as cited supra, after giving such
benefit of promotion vide order dt.19.06.2007 under
Annexure-2, all the omission and commission so taken
into consideration by the Review Committee
automatically stand lapsed and those conduct could not
have been taken into consideration by the Review
Committee, while recommending to give pre-mature
retirement to the Petitioner.
// 25 //
5.4. It is contended that the incidents taken note of by
the Review Committee starting from Sl. No.1 to 42 come
within the period and prior to extension of the benefit of
promotion vide order dt.19.04.2007. Therefore, in view of
the guideline issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Umed Bhai M. Patel, all his past conduct till
19.04.2007 goes into oblivion, in view of the benefit of
promotion extended in favour of the Petitioner in the year
2007.
5.5. It is also contended that no such proceeding was
ever initiated with due communication to the Petitioner,
as has been indicated in Sl. No.45 of Annexure-B/2. It is
accordingly contended that the Review Committee took
the decision contrary to the provisions contained under
Paragraphs-4 & 7 of the Instruction dtd.24.09.2019
under Annexure-4 and on the face of the promotion
extended vide order dt.19.06.2007 under Annexure-2,
there was material available to recommend the case of
the Petitioner with issuance of the impugned order of pre-
mature retirement vide the impugned order under
Annexure-3.
// 26 //
5.6. In support of his submission, reliance was placed
to the following decisions:
1. Brundaban Sahu Vs. The Orissa
State of Road Transport Corporation
Company Ltd. & Others, Second Appeal
No.208 of 1989, decided on 16.08.2002.
2. Epari Basudev Rao, Vs. State of
Odisha, 2014(II) ILR-, CUT 297.
3. Sanjaya Ku. Sahoo Vs. State of
Odisha and Others, W.P.(C ) No.11654 of
2022, decided on 11.07.2025.
4. Ajit Kumar Mohapatra Vs. State of
Odisha and Others, W.P.(C ) No.37932 of
2021, decided on 31.10.2023.
5.7. In the case of Brundaban Sahu, this Court in
Paragraphs-10 to 12 has held as under:-
10. In the case of State of Gujarat v.
MANU/SC/0140/2001: AIR 2001 SC 1109, the
Apex Court again laid down 8 guidelines to be
observed before an order of premature
retirement is passed. The said guidelines are as
follows:
(i) When 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.
// 27 //
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential
record shall be taken note of and be given due
weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the
confidential record can also be taker into
consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall
not be passed as a short cut t avoid
departmental enquiry when such course is
more desirable.
(vii) If the officer is 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.
11. From the analysis of the guidelines given by
the Apex Court in both the
(vii) If the officer is 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.
11. From the analysis of the guidelines given by the
Apex Court in both the cases referred to above it is
clear that when 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 and such compulsory retirement shall not be
done as a punitive pressure. The purpose of passing
an order of premature retirement is for better
ministration and it is necessary to chop off dead-wood.
Now coming to the past C.C.Rs, of the Plaintiff as
quoted above. I do not find single adverse entry and on
the other hand services rendered by the Plaintiff has
been appreciated at some places. The only ground on
which the order of premature retirement is based
appears to be pendency of a vigilance enquiry which
culminated in a final report in favour of the Plaintiff
after the impugned order was passed. In connection
with the above reference may be made to a decision of
this Court in the case of Bhaskar Padhi v. The Orissa
Road Transport Co. Ltd. and Ant reported in 7387 (1)
// 28 //
OLR 219. In the said case the delinquent officer was
put under compulsory retirement while he was working
as a Traffic Supervisor in the year 1982. One of the
considerations for passing the order of compulsory
retirement was pendency of a vigilance enquiry on
certain allegations. This Court while dealing with the
said question observed that if some allegation had
been made and a case started by vigilance department
was pending that could not be a ground to hold that
the Petitioner lacked integrity. After all the matter had
remained at the stage of adjudication and it had not
been established that the Petitioner was dishonest.
The Apex Court in the case of M.S. Bindra v. Union of
India and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0565/1998 AIR
1998 SC 3058 also dealt with the question in reference
to "doubtful integrity". The Apex Court held as follows:
The Appellant Director of Anti Evasion Wing had
established in unblemished reputation and earned
encomiums from all concerned for having conducted
series of raids on business houses to unearth huge
amount of concealed excise duty. He was dubbed as
an officer of doubtful integrity and ordered to
compulsory retire. Out of the three instances on which
the Screening Committee relied to dub the officer as a
case of "doubtful integrity" the first was his action
against a business house. The fact is that it was the
Appellant who headed the operation. A task which
unearthed huge sum of concealed excise duty would
normally evoke appreciation for his work. But what
was noted against him in that affair was that he
wilfully created lacuna in the confiscation proceedings
for providing an escape route to the defaulter. One
lacuna was that the confiscation order contained
nearly 100 pages and the period was too short for
preparing such an order. Another lacuna was that he
imposed a huge penalty show cause notice. Normally
it is an achievement and fine without issuing that an
order of 100 pages was made during such a short
period. It cannot be frowned at by inferring that he
would have caused it to be written by somebody else.
Similarly to say that be imposed penalty without
notice, in order to held the defaulter is too fetched.
The second instance was that investigation against
some business houses was kept in abeyance by the
Deputy Director allegedly at behest of Appellant. The
minimum things expected of the screening committee
was to ascertain from the Deputy Director, the
circumstances under which instructions were issued
// 29 //
by him to keep the investigation in abeyance.
Attributing a sinister motive to the Appellant for what
his deputy had done was seemingly unfair, without
adopting the minimum precautions. The third instance
was a statement by a owner of a business house that
a third person has told them that Appellant was to be
paid Rs. 10 lakhs to save them from the proceedings.
Neither its truthfulness was checked with the
Appellant or with the third person who had made it.
Held, there was utter dearth of evidence for the
Screening Committee to conclude that Appellant had
doubtful integrity. Order by which premature
compulsory retirement was imposed on the Appellant
was liable to be set aside.
12. In view of the decision referred to above. I
am of the opinion that there being no adverse entry in
the C.C.Rs, of the Plaintiff and the Review Committee
having recommended twice for his continuance in
service, there was no reason for the Defendants to
retire the Plaintiff prematurely. Mere pendency of a
vigilance investigation was not enough to say that the
Plaintiff had a doubtful integrity. On the other hand
from the record it appears that the said vigilance
enquiry ended in final report in favour of the Plaintiff.
I therefore, agree with trial Court that the materials
were not sufficient to hold that the Plaintiff's
retirement was necessary in public interest.
5.8. In the case of Epari Basudev Rao, this Court in
Paragraphs-32 & 51 has held as under:-
32. Now, what is to be examined is the overall
performance on the basis of entire service record
to come to the conclusion as to whether the
petitioner has become a dead wood and it is in
public Interest to retire him compulsorily. Perusal
of CCR extracted above does not show that at
any point of time the petitioner was found
inefficient to discharge his judicial duty and has
become a dead wood. He is in almost all the time
rated as an efficient judicial officer.
In the year 1981 the remark is that he is
industrious; in the year 1982 the remark is "he is
industrious and cope with heavy work"; in 1983
// 30 //
remark is, "he is sincere and hard-working", but
for the next six months, l.e., from 2.1.1984 to
11.6.1984 the remark is "Industrious but needs
improvement to deal with heavy work. From
18.6.1984 to 3.12.1984 the remark was, he is
industrious and cope with heavy work, for the
year 1985 "he was industrious and giving better
yardstick; for the years 1987 to 1996 the
remarks was he is industrious and cope with
heavy work. For the year 1998 to 2001 his
quality of work has been rated as "good/very
good". For the years 2004 and 2005, his quality
of work is rated as "good". For the period
7.11.2005 to 31.12.2007, the C.C.R. entry
shows that he is very capable, competent,
sincere, dedicated and hard working officer. He
has very good and sound legal knowledge and
outstanding performance. His general reputation
and honesty is very good, as an outstanding
officer. For the period from 4.12.2009 to
23.3.2010 remark is that "he is a sincere
worker". For the period 25.3.2010 to 26.06.2010
remark is "he is sincere, dedicated officer with
full of zeal and drive to work and taking
responsibility also".
So far his knowledge of law and Judicial
capacity, remarks for the period from 1981 to
November, 1996 given is either good, fairly good,
satisfactory, better, a capable judicial officer, a
competent judicial officer.
Remarks about his promptness in disposal of
cases as given in the CCR during the period
1981 to November, 1996 in almost all the years
is either prompt, very prompt, good except the
year 1981 that he is improving gradually and in
the year 1984 he "needs improvement".
His promptness in pronouncing
judgment/order/award the remarks during the
year 1998 to October, 2005 is either good or
prompt except for the period 5.9.2001 to
31.12.2001 he "needs improvement"
With regard to his punctuality and regularity the
remarks given for the period 1998 to June, 2005
is that he is punctual and regular.
// 31 //
With regard to the petitioner's ability, the
remarks given for the period 4.12.2009 to
23.03.2010 is that "he has knowledge of rules
and amendments etc." and for the period from
25.3.2010 to 26.6.2010 the remarks is "able and
capable officer and very alert, noting and
drafting is good, he is skilled and able to take
decision and maintains cordial relationship with
his colleagues and subordinate officers and
employees".
Xxx xxx xxx
51. On 8.8.2008, the petitioner was
substantially appointed to the cadre of OSJS (Sr.
Branch). On 19.8.2009 the petitioner was
permitted to hold Selection Grade at the age of
55 years. It is relevant to note here that after
2009 the petitioner earned "very good" CCR for
two years i.e. during the year 2009 and 2010
and "good" CCR for the part of the 2009. On
3.8.2010 the petitioner was granted Super Time
Scale. Here it is pertinent to mention that
although Rule 5 of Rules, 2007 requires the
District Judges to put three years service in
Selection Grade in order to be granted Super
Time Scale, in the case of the petitioner
considering his merit though he did not complete
three years such promotion was given relaxing
Rule 5 of Rules, 2007. As per Rules 4 and 5 the
promotions are based on seniority-cum-merit. If
the petitioner was found meritorious in 2009 and
2010, it is difficult on our part to accept the
contention of Mr. Sahoo that the petitioner
became non-meritorious in 2012 more
particularly on the face of the CCR, wherein he
was rated "very good" during interregnum
period, as per the observation of His Excellency
the Governor of Odisha in Note Sheets
(Annexure--9)
5.9. In the case of Sanjaya Ku. Sahoo, this Court in
Paragraphs-4 has held as under:-
4. As to punitive nature of impugned order and
violation of principles of natural justice:
// 32 //
(a) Learned State Counsel vehemently controverted
the submission of petitioner's counsel that the
impugned order is not only arbitrary but has
abundant elements of punitive nature. Let us examine
this: The order ex facie looks innocuous, is true.
However, a deeper examination would reveal its true
nature & effect, because of the following stand taken
up by the opposite parties:
(i) Petitioner had thrown some caste aspersions on
and used filthy words against a Night Watchman of
the Court in Jharsuguda.
(ii) Petitioner had shown unruly behaviour qua Bar
Members, and that he was asking them to arrange for
women & money for penning favourable orders, and
that he was receiving cash & kind. At least, the above
allegations are as wild as can be, is not disputable.
Along with other the said allegations too entered the
decision making process that eventually culminated
into the impugned order of premature retirement,
stands obviated. In fact, in the written submissions
dated 24.06.2025 filed on behalf of opposite parties,
the said allegations are specifically mentioned at
pages 2 & 3. We repeat that these being wild
allegations against a sitting Judicial Officer, ought to
have been enquired into by constituting a disciplinary
proceeding.
(b) While adjudging the nature of orders of impugned
kind, one can lift the veil to see the true picture.
Reference to above allegations abound in the records
furnished to us in the sealed cover. Even otherwise,
these allegations are specifically pleaded by the
opposite parties, as already mentioned above. A
compulsory retirement is no substitute for holding a
disciplinary inquiry and that such decisions cannot be
taken as a punitive measure vide Umedbhai supra.
Be that as it may, once an action is punitive then the
question arises as to whether such an order could
have been passed without giving an opportunity of
hearing to the official. The answer has to be in the
negative. Records do not reveal any reasons as to
why no disciplinary inquiry was initiated nor was
any opportunity afforded. We hasten to add that the
requirement of hearing arises only because of
imperative principles of natural justice, and not on
account of requirement of a 3-month notice prescribed
in Rule 38. It hardly needs to be stated that payment
// 33 //
of three months emoluments dispenses with such a
notice. Admittedly, they are paid in this case.
5.10. In the case of Ajit Kumar Mohapatra, this Court in
Paragraphs-43 has held as under:-
43. In the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Umedbhai M Patel's case (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also cautioned that the
termination of service on compulsory retirement shall
not be used as a punitive measure coming under
Article 311 of the Constitution. On a conspectus of the
entire background facts as well as record, this Court
is of the view that the authorities have deliberately
resorted to a short-cut to avoid departmental enquiry
and accordingly the review committee without any
justifiable ground has recommended for compulsory
retirement of the Petitioner. This Court is in complete
agreement with the view expressed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that in the interest of better
administration dead woods in the public services are
required to be chopped off by resorting to compulsory
retirement while reviewing their cases periodically.
Such appraisal by the review committee is subject to
a rider that there must be enough ground to terminate
the service of a Government Servant by giving him
compulsory retirement. In the present case, the review
committee has cited two disciplinary proceedings and
a vigilance case which have been discussed in detail
hereinabove, moreover after conclusion of the
Disciplinary Proceedings the Petitioner was given
promotion. Therefore, applying clause-7 of para-11 of
Umedbhai M Patel's case (supra), once the Petitioner
has been given promotion despite adverse entries
made in the confidential record, an inference to be
drawn in favour of the Petitioner not in favour of the
department. On a overall analysis of the service
career as is evident from the materials on record, this
Court is convinced that the Departmental Authorities
have taken resort to a short-cut to remove the
Petitioner from service by suggesting compulsorily
retirement instead of initiating a Departmental
Proceeding against the Petitioner. Therefore, the
conduct of the Review Committee in recommending
compulsory retirement fails to pass the test of law as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai
// 34 //
M Patel's case (supra). Therefore, the decision taken
by the review committee in the present case calls for
interference by this Court.
5.11. Making all these submissions, learned Sr. Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that
there was no ground to give pre-mature retirement to the
Petitioner and such pre-mature retirement given vide the
impugned order dt.18.11.2021 under Annexure-3 is not
sustainable in the eye of law as it is not only illegal but
also arbitrary and outcome of malafide.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considering the submission made, this Court
finds that Petitioner while continuing as an ad-hoc
Junior Engineer, he was regularized in the cadre of
Junior Engineer/Assistant Project Manager vide order
dtd.23.09.1991. It is also found that Petitioner while so
continuing as an Asst. Project Manager, he was promoted
to the rank of Deputy Manager vide order dt.19.06.2007
under Annexure-2. As found, Petitioner while so
continuing, he was implicated in Bhubaneswar Vigilance
P.S. Case No.34 of 2021 and because of such implication
in the Vigilance case with his arrest, Petitioner was
// 35 //
placed under suspension vide order dt.11.11.2021 under
Annexure-A/2. Thereafter, the Review Committee in its
proceeding dt.13.11.2021 under Annexure-B/2,
recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the
Petitioner which was acted upon by Opp. Party No.2 vide
the impugned order dt.18.11.2021 under Annexure-3.
6.1. It is not disputed that such a decision to give pre-
mature 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 Annexure-
4. 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.
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
recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the
// 36 //
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.
6.3. It is also found that the Review Committee while
taking the decision in its proceeding dt.13.11.2021, relied
on various past conduct of the Petitioner starting from
28.03.1990 to 10.11.2021. But as found, on the face of
such conduct from 1990 till 08.12.2006 (Sl. No.1 to Sl.
// 37 //
No.42), Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion vide
order dtd.19.06.2007 under Annexure-2. Therefore, in
view of the parameters fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel in para-11, such
conduct of the Petitioner till 08.12.2006, could not have
been taken into consideration while recommending for
premature retirement of the Petitioner.
6.4. Even though Petitioner was implicated in the
Vigilance Proceeding in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case
No.34 dtd.10.11.2021 and he was placed under
suspension vide order dt.11.11.2021 under Annexure-
A/2, but since Petitioner has yet been charge-sheeted, it
cannot be held that Petitioner has committed the mis-
appropriation which is the subject matter in the Vigilance
case.
6.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of
this court that the impugned order passed on 18.11.2021
under Annexure-3 in giving pre-mature retirement to the
Petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law.
// 38 //
6.6. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of
Brundaban Sahu, Epari Vasudeva Rao, Sanjaya
Kumar Sahoo and Ajit Kumar Mohapatra and the
decision in the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel as cited
supra, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner has been
illegally given pre-mature retirement vide the impugned
order dt.18.11.2021 under Annexure-3, basing on the
recommendation made by the Review Committee in its
proceeding dt.13.11.2021 under Annexure-B/2. The
decisions relied on by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing
on behalf of Opp. Party No.2, as per the considered view
of this Court, are not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
6.7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is
inclined to quash order dt.18.11.2021 so issued under
Annexure-3 by Opp. Party No.2. While quashing order
dt.18.11.2021, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to
allow the Petitioner to continue under suspension, so
passed vide order dt.11.11.2021 under Annexure-A/2.
// 39 //
6.8. However, quashing of the impugned order under
Annexure-3 shall not debar Opp. Party-Corporation from
taking appropriate action in accordance with law and
with initiation of appropriate proceeding against the
Petitioner for his alleged misconduct. Petitioner is also at
liberty to make appropriate application seeking
revocation of the order of suspension.
6.9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of
with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 28th October, 2025./sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:03:15
