DR. GANESHLAL MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application asking for quashing of the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner made by the Governor of Orissa on 12th Nov., 19 5, in exercise of powers conferred under the First Proviso to Sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code.

(2.) Petitioner was born on 2-5-1922 and joined Government service on 2-11-1948. On 23-3-1973, when he was about 51 years of age, petitioner came to be promoted as an Assistant Director of Public Heath on ad hoc basis. In Aug., 1973, petitioner's case was subjected to review in terms of the Political and Service Department Circular, but he was not retired. During this period, petitioner was being continued in the promotional post of Assistant Director by periodic notifications. In July, 19 75, petitioner's case was again reviewed and ultimately he was served with the impugned order. It is contended by Mr. Misra on behalf of the petitioner that :

(3.) The latest entries in the confidential character roll of the petitioner were not adverse and should have been taken into consideration by the Review Committee. The Government instruction required an overall picture of the performances of an officer to be taken into account and reliance was not to be placed on one or two adverse entries for coming to the conclusion that the officer was to be retired. Besides, as adverse entries after 1973 had not been communicated to the petitioner, they are not available to be utilised against him in directing compulsory retirement. In the return made to this Court, the under Secretary to Government In Health and Family Planning Department has described the performances of the petitioner during the entire service career. It has further been stated that the Review Committee in 1973 considered the petitioner's character roll till 1971-72 and had recommended that petitioner be compulsory retired Government, however, did not accept the recommendation. In 1975 petitioners performances of the years 1972-73 & 1973-74 were considered by the Review Committee and on the basis of materials then available, the Review Committee recommended that the petitioner be compulsorily retired. The order of compulsory retirement has been made in public interest and there is no force in petitioner's contention that the order is vitiated. It has been further averred that an order directing the crossing of efficiency bar or granting an ad hoc promotion does not wipe out the adverse entries, nor does it condone the lapses. When an overall picture of the performances of a particular officer has to be taken into account, all the records are available to be considered. In paragraph 5(5) of the Counter affidavit, the further averment is that by the time the petitioner came to be promoted as an Assistant Director of Public Health on ad hoc basis, he was superseded by twelve of his junior officers and the Public Service Commission did not give concurrence to petitioner's appointment as Assistant Director in these circumstances, petitioner was being continued assistant Director on ad hoc basis to facilitate drawing of his pay.