KAILASH CHANDRA PADHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition challenge has been made to the order dated 19.08.1995 (Annexure-7) passed by opposite party No.1-State of Orissa through Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Sachivalaya Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khurda by which opposite party No.1 prematurely retired the petitioner w.e.f. 19.08.1995 in exercise of powers conferred under clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code on the ground that the said order is arbitrary, malafide and vitiated for non-application of mind.

(2.) Petitioner's case in a nutshell is that he was recruited through the Orissa Public Service Commission as a Temporary Munsif in O.J.S. (Class-II) Cadre under the Emergency Recruitment Rules, 1979. After Opposite party No.1 appointed him as a Munsif on 09.01.1981, this Court posted him as an Additional Munsif in the Judgeship of Ganjam-Boudh on 14.01.1981. Subsequently, he was appointed in the rank of Munsif in the cadre of O.J.S. (Class-II) w.e.f. 27.01.1983. During his incumbency as a Munsif at various stations, there were adverse entries in his Confidential Character Roll (CCR) for the years 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1989. According to the petitioner, all these CCR entries are merely to the extent that the petitioner was peevish and that he should improve the capacity of supervision over his staff. On 30.01.1989, he was promoted to O.J.S. Class-I (Junior Branch). The High Court on careful consideration of his service performances as a Judicial Officer permitted him to cross the Efficiency Bar w.e.f. 01.01.1990 and his pay scale was accordingly raised. After getting promotion to O.J.S. Class-I (Jr. Branch) and during his incumbency in the said cadre, a proceeding was initiated against him, and after holding an inquiry this Court accepted the report of the Inquiring Officer and dropped the proceeding. The petitioner was subsequently, promoted to the cadre of O.J.S. Class-I by order of the High Court on 14.11.1994. The High Court on careful consideration of all the materials on record, restored the petitioner's seniority by order dated 14.11.1994. On 24.03.1995, the petitioner was posted as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Champua. While the petitioner was continuing as such suddenly by order dated 19.08.1995, he was prematurely retired with effect from the said date. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 19.08.1995 passed under Annexure-7 is arbitrary, mala fide and vitiated for non-application of mind. It was submitted that the petitioner hails from the district of Koraput, which is a backward district and having come from such a background, he could not satisfy the requirements of his higher reporting officers who hail from the advanced districts of the State. The petitioner's upbringing from a backward district in an environment of backward people of the State should not and could not lawfully stand on the way insofar as discharge of his official duties as a Judicial Officer. The adverse CCRs during the years 1984 to 1989 are of minor nature and are not relevant for the purpose of estimating the efficiency of the petitioner as a Judicial Officer. The promotion of the petitioner to O.J.S. Class-I (Junior Branch) and the order of this Court permitting the petitioner to Cross Efficiency Bar have rendered the minor, irrelevant and negligible adverse entries in his CCRs ineffective. The only blot in petitioner's career was an ignorant order passed by him in relation to the restoration application and the displeasure of this Court expressed on such conduct of the petitioner. During the petitioner's incumbency in the cadre of O.J.S. Class-I, hardly for four months, there was nothing on record even mildly suggesting of inaptitude or inefficiency or any entry in the Service Book to his discredit or hinting even remotely that he had outlived his utility as a Judicial Officer. The impugned order is not bona fide and is presumed to have been passed on collateral grounds. The impugned order even does not whisper ex facie that the order was passed in public interest and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. The order also does not reveal any reason or ground in support of the purported exercise of power conferred on the opposite parties under Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. The impugned order affects the livelihood of the petitioner. There has been no periodic review of work of the petitioner. It was submitted that the very basis/requirement of formation of opinion about public interest is lacking and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Law is well settled that all such entries made in the CCRs prior to the order of promotion and the order permitting the petitioner to cross Efficiency Bar are not available to be considered for the purpose of giving premature retirement. The impugned order is otherwise bad in law as the same is not bona fide, based on collateral grounds, extraneous consideration and there is no material on record. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra vs. State of Punjab, 1987 2 SCC 188 and State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 3 SCC 314.