(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25.4.2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 234 of 1999 quashing the order dated 9.12.1998 whereby in exercise of powers under Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code, the opposite party No. 1, a Class -II Police Officer, was pre -maturely retired.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the date of birth of the opp. party No. 1 is 2.5.1946 and on the date on which, the order of pre - mature retirement was issued, i.e. 9.12.1998, he was more than 50 years of age. It is not disputed that action of premature retirement was taken on the recommendation of the Premature Retirement Committee which reviewed the cases of Class -II Police Officers who had completed the age of 50 and 55 years as on 3.6.1998. It is also not disputed that the case of the opp. party No. 1 was reviewed on evaluation of his performance on the basis of his C.C.Rs. for the previous five years, i.e., 1992 -93 to 1996 -97.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it would be relevant to make a brief reference to the Circular dated 24.11.1987, which, as observed above, related to premature retirement of Government servants in pursuance of Clause (a) of Rule 7 1 of the Orissa Service Code. The said circular, inter alia, lays down the procedure to be followed where it is decided to retire an employee prematurely and as laid down therein, the instructions contained in the Circular are to be followed by the authorities empowered to conduct reviews or issue orders retiring, an employee prematurely. Clause -7 of the Circular clearly lays down that 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 lower grade was satisfactory, he clearly lacks in,the standard of efficiency required to discharge the duties of the post he presently holds. Clause -8 of the Circular is also important and lays down that the objective of the review is to weed out persons of doubtful integrity or patent inefficiency from pu.blic service. It further provides in order that no such decision 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. Clause -9 of the Circular lays down that the Cqmmittee is to consider each case in the light of the entries in the employee's character roll and such other authentic reports as may be available. It indicates that normally entries for a period often years are to be looked into, but those of the previous five years from the date when the review was held should be assigned the highest importance and if these reports are not on the whole adverse, viz. do not indicate that the employee's case falls under either of the three criteria referred to in paragraph -7, the employee should, unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary, be recommended for continuance in service either till the next review or till the date of normal superannuation, as the case may be.