JUDGMENT :

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

The petitioner, who was working as Head Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (in short hereinafter referred to as CISF), has filed this application seeking to quash the order of compulsory retirement passed by opposite party no.5-Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela dated 13.05.2008 vide Annexure-1 and allow him to continue as Head Constable under the said organization as before.

2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner’s date of birth being 27.02.54, he was appointed as Constable under CISF on 15.08.1972 by following due procedure of selection. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 19.05.2005 and is a member of “Force” within the meaning of Section 2 (9)(b) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (Hereinafter referred to as 1968 Act).

3. Mr. D.R. Pattnayak, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the order impugned under Annexure-1 dated 23.05.2008 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from his service was not passed following a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him but on completion of 30 years of service following a review. It is stated that the petitioner’s date of birth being 27.02.1954 he would have superannuated from service on attaining the age of retirement on 28.02.2014. While he was in service a review committee was held on 23.05.2008 after the petitioner completed 30 years of service and the order of compulsory retirement was passed. It is stated that such order was passed without application of mind. The petitioner completed 30 years of service on 15.08.2002. After completion of 30 years of service, the petitioner was allowed to continue in his service. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 19.05.2005. Review Committee was held on 23.05.2008 and the impugned order was issued by opposite party no.5-Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, RSP, Rourkela under Rule-48(1)(b) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 directing the petitioner for compulsory retirement, which is contrary to the provisions of law. In order to substantiate his contention, Mr. D.R. Pattnayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board, AIR 2010 SC 151.

4. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the opposite parties, referring to counter affidavit specifically disputed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the order of premature retirement passed on 23.05.2008 by giving the petitioner three months’ pay and allowance instead of three months notice in accordance with Rule FR-56(J) and Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS Pension Rules 1972 was sent along with banker’s cheque bearing No.MCAB/688-475286 dated 23.05.2008 for Rs.28,287/-. But the petitioner refused to accept the same. He having refused to accept the same, the same was sent through Registered Post dated 24.05.2008, which was also returned back by the postal authority with remarks that addressee customer was absent on 28.05.2008, 29.05.2008, 30.05.2008, 31.05.2008 and 02.06.2008. The said banker’s cheque was again sent to his permanent address through Registered Post dated 20.06.2008 in which acknowledgement copy is still awaited. It is stated that in terms of Rules-48(1)(b) of C.C.S.(Pension) Rules, 1972, a review committee under the Chairmanship of D.I.G., CISF Unit, RSP, Rourkela was constituted for determining his suitability or otherwise for continued retention of the petitioner in Govt. service after completion of 30 years of qualifying service. Taking into account his whole service records and last five years annual confidential report, the review committee held him not fit for future service and accordingly the impugned order was passed which is well within the provisions of law and this Court may not interfere with the same.

5. On the basis of the facts pleaded and on perusing the records the undisput