JUDGMENT

B.N.Mahapatra, J.

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.

In fact, by means of this writ petition, the petitioner invokes extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to decide correctness of the order/decision of the Full Court giving him compulsory retirement from service while he was working as Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar on the ground that the order is arbitrary and unreasonable, as on the basis of materials available on record an opinion could not have been reasonably formed to retire him from service prematurely in public interest.

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., AIR 1999 SC 1018:

“2. The recommendation of the High Court on the basis of which the appellant, who held the rank of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, was compulsorily retired from service, exhibits the tragic fact that the highest judicial body of the State which abhors anything done contrary to the rule of law or done in a whimsical manner or arbitrarily, can itself act in that manner on the administrative side. Still, the plea that High Court Judges suffer from “split personality” cannot be accepted for the pleasant fact that though on the adminis-trative side they might have had acted as ordinary bureaucrat, once they don the robes they forget all their previous associations and connections. The transformation is so complete and real that even though they themselves were part of the decision making process, they quash their own administrative decisions in exercise of their power of judicial review and thus maintain the majesty and independence of the Indian judiciary in which the people have always reposed tremendous faith.....”

4. No doubt, there is very limited scope of judicial review of an order of premature retirement from service, but when an order of compulsory retirement is challenged in a court of law, the Court has to examine whether any ground or material germane to the issue exists or not.

5. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dishonest,