(1.) The petitioner, who was a member of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned notification dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure-6) issued by opposite party No.1- State of Odisha, represented through its Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Home Department, who in exercise of power under Rule 44 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, "Rules, 2007") passed order for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from Government service giving three months' pay and allowances in lieu of three months' notice as prescribed in the aforesaid Rules.
(2.) Indeed, it is a very delicate and sensitive task to decide the reasonableness/correctness of the decision taken by the Full Court giving compulsory retirement to the petitioner from service in which both of us were members. It is true that while deciding the matter in administrative side our role was completely different and now we shall decide the matter on judicial side in a different capacity. The petitioner reposes highest faith in this Court with the belief that the Court, which always strikes down anything done contrary to the rule of law or done in a whimsical manner or arbitrarily, will do justice if anything wrong done to him. There are instances that orders of the Full Court giving compulsory retirement to a judicial officer on the administrative side have been challenged in judicial side and the Judges who were part of the Full Court have quashed their own administrative order/decision in exercise of their power of judicial review. That is why people of this country repose highest faith in judiciary which always maintains its majesty, dignity and independence. This is a unique feature in our Constitution.
(3.) At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1999 AIR(SC) 1018