SRI BAIKUNTHANATH DAS Vs. CHIEF DT MEDICAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in O. J. C. No. 412 of 1976 was serving as a Pharmacist when he was served with the order of compulsory retirement (Annexure-1) dated February 13, 1976 and the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 475 of 1976 had been serving as Lady Health Visitor when she was compulsorily retired from service by the order (Annexure-1) passed on the same day. Both these orders have been passed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under the first Proviso to Sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the "code" which reads :

(2.) COMMON questions have been raised by the same learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the matters which have been heard together and this judgment will govern both the cases.

(3.) THE petitioner Baikunthanath Das challenges the order of compulsory retirement on the ground of mala fides and his case is that the impugned order was not based on any material, but had been passed owing to grudge and ill-will towards him by the Chief District Medical Officers for which he had been transferred from place to place and had been placed under suspension at one stage without any justification and many representations made by him had gone" unheeded. Reliance has been placed by him in this regard on Annexures 2 to 9. He has also annexed a copy of letter No. 21423 dated October 1, 1975 addressed to all Heads of Departments (Annexure-10) regarding the principles and procedure to be followed while passing an order of retirement of a Government employee under Rule 71 (1) of the Code. According to him, he had been working satisfactorily, sincerely and efficiently and no adverse entries in his Confidential Character Roll had been communicated to him. In the counter-affidavit, the grounds taken by the petitioner have been controverted and it has been stated that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed after the Review Committee decided that this was a fit case where action should be taken in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 71 (a) of the code. It has been averred therein that the remarks in the Confidential Character Roll in respect of the petitioner besides some other reports against him had been available for consideration by the Review Committee. The impugned order had not been passed owing to mala fides on the part of the authorities and transfers of the petitioner had been effected on administrative grounds. While according to the petitioner, the impugned order is illegal and invalid, State Government asserts that it had been validly passed after the due consideration and in public interest.