SATYAJIT SEN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of Notification dated 24th February, 2009 issued by opposite party No. 1-Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Law urging various facts and legal contentions. Petitioner's case in nutshell is that he joined in the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II on 27.10.1990 vide Government of Orissa, Law Department Notification No. IJ-98/89-13478/Law dated 14.09.1990 (Munsif) (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1979 and Orissa High Court Notification No. 575(A) dated 21.09.1990 at Kendrapara in Cuttack Judgeship as a temporary Munsif. He has worked at different stations in Orissa as a Subordinate Judicial Officer in different capacities sincerely and honestly as such he has got an unblemished career in Judiciary. The petitioner was substantively appointed and confirmed in the Orissa Judicial Service as Class-II Officer w.e.f. 08.10.1992 vide High Court Notification No. 610/A dated 16.07.1999 thereafter he was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar vide Orissa High Court letter No. XX-7/93-539 dated 17.01.1995/18.01.1995 w.e.f. 01.10.1993, he was allowed to get all his normal annual increments and other service benefits and he was also promoted to the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class-I (Jr. Branch) vide Orissa High Court Notification No. 809/A dated 27.11.2001. He has also been granted ACP-I Scale in the cadre of Civil Judge w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and it is reliably learnt that the petitioner has been granted to get ACP-II Scale in the cadre of Civil Judge w.e.f. 07.10.2010. The aforesaid benefits have been given to the petitioner without any hindrance. He was promoted to the Cadre of Senior Civil Judge w.e.f. 28.07.2008 but due to ill luck the petitioner has not been given promotion to the said cadre as yet and it is reliably learnt that the petitioner's promotion has not been considered due to the pendency of departmental proceedings bearing No. D.P. 5/2005, wherein the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 30.04.2006 vide the Office of Commissioner of Endowment, Orissa. Bhubaneswar Letter No. 4898 dated 29.04.2006 in respect of one head of charge only relating to nine numbers of innocuous judicial orders (bail orders). The petitioner submitted its written statement on 10.05.2006 to the aforesaid charge. He participated in the enquiry before the learned Enquiring Officer-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurda. It is stated that charge made in the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him is vague, baseless and not tenable in the eye of law. Therefore, the petitioner's premature retirement is illegal as the same has been passed as a short-cut way to the department proceedings and is based on collateral grounds and it is not in public interest. Though the disciplinary proceedings was initiated for collateral reasons and not in public interest short cut way to the disciplinary proceedings initiated and the order of said premature compulsory retirement is on collateral grounds illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) In support of his contention, Mr. A.K. Mohanty(A), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places strong reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others, 2008 3 SCT 429 Brij Behari Lal Agarwal v. Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1981 AIR(SC) 594 M.P. State Co-Op. Diary Federation Ltd. and another v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, 2009 2 SCT 571, and the decision of the Delhi in the case of O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and another, 1981 3 SLR 778 and submits that entries made in the C.C. Rs., is bad in law and also contrary to the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the same and further has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to opposite parties to reinstate him in the service in question and give him promotion to the cadre of Senior Civil Judge w.e.f. 28.07.2008 with all consequential service and financial benefits.

(3.) Counter statement has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties sworn to by Sri Kirti Chandra Bank, working as Special Officer (Administration) in the Office of the Orissa High Court traversing the averments of the petitioner made in the writ petition.