RAMESH CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT BHUBANESWAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order of compulsory retirement in exercise of the powers conferred under the first proviso to sub Rule (2) of Sec. 71 of the Orissa Service Code is under challenge in this writ application, The Petitioner is a Judicial Officer and was in the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II on the date of his retirement on 19th June, 1982. On that date he had attained the age of 52 years and had completed 32 years of service out of which 14, years was as a Munsif. The Full Court of the Orissa High Court latter reviewing the Petitioner 's service career took the decision on 17th June, 1982 that the Petitioner should not continued in service and should in the public interest be retired with immediate effect with three month 's pay and allowances in lieu of the notice. On the basis of the said decision of the Full Court and on receipt of the recommendation of the Court, the Government passed the impugned order on 19th June, 1982 which has been annexed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition, This order was communicated to the Petitioner on 21st of June, 1982, It is this order against the Petitioner which is being assailed in the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner raises the following submissions in assailing the order of compulsory retirement:

(3.) Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, contends that the entire service career of the Petitioner having been considered by the Court to find out whether it is necessary in the public interest that the Petitioner should retire and the decision thereon being based on materials on record, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel further contends that when uncommunicated adverse entries can also be acted upon there is no legal bar in considering the adverse entries against which representation might have been filed before disposing of the representations. The rival submissions require a careful examination on the principles of the law on the subject.