DAMODAR TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 28 -2 -1980 as per Annexure -8 passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal, (opposite party No. 3) compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from 29 -2 -1980 afternoon and has sought a mandamus to the opposite parties directing payment of leave salary for 72 days.

(2.) THE petitioner joined service under the ex -State of Dherkanai. After merger of the ex -State in the State of Orissa, he was absorbed and posted as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from 1 -4 -1948. He was promoted as Grade II Stenographer in 1962. While continuing as such in the Collectorate of Dhenkanal, he made a representation on 10 -7 -1979 stating that as a former employee of the ex -State of Dhenkanal, he, being mentally and physically fit, was entitled to continue up to 60 years of age. The Compensation Officer (opposite party No. 4), to whom he was attached then, made a reference to the Chief District Medical Officer, Dhenkanal, to examine the petitioner and opine if he was physically and mentally fit to discharge his official duties. As per Annexure -5 dated 20 -12 -1979, the Chief District Medical Officer opined that the petitioner was fit, both physically and mentally. The Collector (opposite party No. 3) however directed him to appear at a test. The test as directed by opposite party No. 3 was conducted by the Additional District Magistrate on 18 -2 -1980. Then came the order of opposite party No. 3 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 29 -2 -1980 as he was of the opinion that the petitioner was not efficient to continue in service. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that there was no adverse entry in his confidential character rolls. Opposite party No. 4 under whom he served for years had not found him wanting in any respect. He has further alleged that when he was found fit, both physically and mentally, by the Chief District Medical Officer, who recommended that he could continue until he attained 60 years of age, it was not open to opposite party No. 3 to hold a test to judge his efficiency.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner as a former employee of ex -State of Dhenkanal was absorbed in Orissa State Service and was entitled to be retained in service till he attained the age of 60 years if he was fit, both physically and mentally, and was efficient. It is also not disputed that on a reference by the opposite party . No. 4, the Chief District Medical Officer found the petitioner fit, both physically and mentally The crux of the matter' is if the appointing authority was entitled to direct the holding of a test to judge the petitioner's efficiency. The petitioner was a stenographer at the relevant time. How good was he as a stenographer, could be judged by judging his efficiency in taking down what was dictated in shorthand and typing out the same. A test to judge his efficiency cannot be said to be extraneous or collateral. Such a test was held and from the test -sheet it is found that 157 mistakes were committed by the petitioner, i e., 5.6 mistakes to a line. The performance does not justify the full claim of the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had been efficient throughout his career and there was no adverse entry in his confidential character rolls,. If the appointing authority was of the opinion that the petitioner's efficiency could be best judged by a test, we see nothing unwarranted cr arbitrary therein. May be, there was deterioration in the petitioner's efficiency. What could be a surer test to judge the efficiency cf a stenographer than by holding a test ? If the appointing authority has taken into consideration relevant materials, if no extraneous or collateral matters had clouded his opinion, the decision to compulsorily retire cannot be assailed.