JUDGMENT :

B.K.NAYAK, J.

In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.03.2013 under Annexure-9 retiring him compulsorily from judicial service.

2. The petitioner was recruited as Probationary Munsif on the basis of written test and interview and joined as such on 20.12.1982. He successfully completed his probation and was confirmed in service with effect from 21.12.1985. The case of the petitioner is that while working as Munsif-S.D.J.M. at Udala, a theft of Malkhana properties worth rupees 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) took place in August, 1989 and the petitioner reported the matter to the District Judge and lodged an F.I.R. On 13.09.1989 the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service Class-I (Junior) and was further promoted to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) by notification dated 28.09.1995. It is stated by the petitioner that in August, 2002 an explanation was called for from him for not making proper arrangement to guard the Court Malkhana at Udala for which the theft in August, 1989 allegedly took place. Petitioner submitted his representation (Annexure-1) stating that the burglary in the Malkhana occurred on a Sunday when he had been to village Dukura along with his staff to hold Lok Adalat, and that there was only one watchman, who was on duty, and, therefore, there was no scope to make any alternative arrangement to guard the Malkhana. The explanation from the petitioner was called for apparently on the basis of a report (Annexure-2) dated 24.01.1998 of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in which it was indicated that a disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against the watchman for negligence in duty for which the theft in the Malkhana at Udala occurred but the watchman was exonerated and it was indicated that the petitioner, then S.D.J.M., Udala, did not give proper attention in making arrangement to guard the Court Malkhana.

3. On consideration of the explanation of the petitioner the High Court by letter dated 22.08.2003 (Annexure-3) observed that the petitioner ought not to have diverted the services of the Malkhana Guard to attend the Lok Adalat without making arrangement for watch and ward and the petitioner was cautioned not to repeat such action in future.

4. It is further averred by the petitioner that during his incumbency as Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sambalpur, the Hon’ble Portfolio Judge (Administrative Judge) made a surprise visit of the station and on the basis of the inspection report a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The charges in the proceeding were that on 26.07.2002 the petitioner came to Court fifteen minutes late; the petitioner was careless in disposing of civil cases in the month of June, 2002 and that, in T.S. No.96 of 2009 the petitioner took one month time to pass the decree, though the plaintiff Bank accepted one time settlement; and that the petitioner passed an interim order of injunction in arbitrary manner, which was set aside by the District Judge.

In his show-cause to the first charge, the petitioner explained that the pool car while picking up different Judicial Officers from their residences, one or two Officers were not ready on time and therefore all the officers who came by the pool car reached office fifteen minutes late. As regards the second charge, the petitioner explained that as per the prescribed yardstick, only two title suits were to be disposed of in a month and one of the two suits relating to the Bank, arguments could not be completed before the summer vacation and that the same was completed only on the reopening day and the judgment was pronounced on the very next day. The third charge was however dropped. A Senior Judicial Officer was appointed as Inquiring Officer, who on completion of inquiry gave the finding that the petitioner rendered adequate outturn in the month o