BASUDEB RATH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as Assistant Settlement Officer in the district of Balasore, was prematurely retired on completion of age of 50 years by order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 30 th November, 1992 in Annexure-5 in public interest. Challenging the said order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2594 of 1992 and the said Original Application having been dismissed by the Tribunal on 13.7.1999, this writ application has been filed challenging the said order of compulsoryretirement in Annexure-5 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 13.7.1999 in Annexure-4.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1970 under the Settlement Organization and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer with effect from 3.11.1972. He became a gazetted Assistant Settlement Officer under the Orissa Settlement and Consolidation Service with effect from 15.12.1973 and, accordingly, his services were guided by O.S.C.S. (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1980. He was confirmed in the O.S.C.S. cadre by notification dated 21.3.1985. He was allowed to cross the first efficiency bar by order dated 19.10.1987 passed by the Board of Revenue with effect from 1.1.1981. During his service tenure, he was proceeded with five departmental proceedings on different charges and the first proceeding was drawn in the year 1982. He was exonerated of the charges by order of the Government dated 25.2.1984, but during the period of suspension, adverse remarks were given in his C.C.R. Again in March, 1985 the second departmental proceeding was initiated and the petitioner faced minor punishment. The Reporting Officer, who had given adverse remarks for the year 1981-82 and 1982-83, also again gave adverse remark in 1983-84 and 1984-85. In July, 1986 the third departmental proceeding was initiated and the petitioner faced minor penalty. The 4 th departmental proceeding was initiated in August, 1992. The petitioner was exonerated of all the charges by order of the Board of Revenue dated 21.4.1995. The petitioner was compulsorily retired on 30.11.1992. On the basis of a memo dated 8.7.1992 another departmental proceeding was initiated against him after such retirement, but the department could not prove the charges and, accordingly, he was exonerated of the charges.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he having been exonerated in two departmental proceedings of all the charges and the major charges in the other departmental proceedings having not been proved against him, there was no reason to prematurely retire him when the adverse remarks made during the relevant years are the basis for initiation of the departmental proceedings. It is also the case of the petitioner that he having been confirmed in the post on 21.3.1985 under the relevant rules, the previous C.C.R. entries could not be taken into consideration by the Government for the purpose of premature retirement. It is also the case of the petitioner that he having been allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.1.1988, the adverse entries in between 1981-88 could not also be taken into consideration for the purpose of premature retirement. According to the petitioner, all the adverse entries up to 1.1.1988 got wiped out. The petitioner having been confirmed in the year 1985 and having been allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.1.1988, there was only one adverse entry after 1.1.1988 showing the petitioner to be an average officer. Therefore, on the basis of one adverse entry he could not have been prematurely retired.