JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The petitioner assails the order vide Annexure-6 issued by the opposite parties by retiring him compulsorily from Government service.

FACTS:

2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as LDC/Junior Clerk in the Judgeship of Kandhamal-Boudh, Phulbani on 25.11.1981. On 10.10.1997, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and on 02.12.2003, he was promoted to the post of Sheristadar in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Kantamal. The petitioner has rendered service purportedly from 25.11.1981 to 10.05.2010 with all sincerity and integrity. But on 07.08.2010 the Registrar Civil Courts, Phulbani made a communication to the effect that the District Review Committee held on 31.07.2010 observed that the petitioner is warned with an instruction to avoid shirking responsibility in attending the office work and be active in his duty. The petitioner was directed to be kept under observation till the next Review Meeting vide Annexure-1. On that day the petitioner was also issued with another notice about the above observation vide Annexure-2.

3. Be it is stated that on 25.02.2011, the Review Committee Meeting was held again for review of the service of Class-III Government employees who have completed the age of 50 years and above 54 years. In that meeting the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the Government service. Subsequently, the petitioner received the copy of the Character Roll (C.C.R.) for the period from 09.02.2007 to 19.01.2011. The petitioner came to know from the C.C.R. that he was on duty. On the other hand, on 16.07.2009 the then District Judge reported that the performance is satisfactory. The petitioner purportedly remained absent from 06.11.2010 to 12.12.2010 on health ground.

4. Be it is stated that there is no adverse remark against the petitioner or any strong ground to pass the order of premature retirement against the petitioner. On the other hand, the Circular of the G.A. Department on 24.11.1987 containing the provisions of Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter called “the Code”) have been grossly violated by holding the Review Meeting twice in a year. So, the writ petition is filed challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed on 26.02.2011 vide Annexure-6 and to quash the observation of the Review Committee with the consequential relief to reinstate him.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is gross violation of the provisions of the law by the opposite parties by retiring the petitioner compulsorily from the Government service. The petitioner has not been communicated about the adverse remark except the communication of observation of the District Review Committee. There is no impediment at any time for his promotion to different cadres till 10.05.2010. There is no department enquiry or any proceeding initiated against the petitioner. The communication of the remark of the Review Committee is in utter disregard to the provisions of law because the Review Committee which should be held once in a year as per Rule 71(a) of the Code read with G.A. Department Circular letter dated 24.11.1987, the Review Committee was held on 31.07.2010 leaving the petitioner with warning, and again held on 25.02.2011 when action was taken against the petitioner in retiring him compulsorily from the service at the age of 50 years. So, such proceeding of the meeting is illegal and improper and as such the order of compulsory retirement communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-6 is unsustainable in law. So, he prayed to quash the orders vide Annexures-6 and 7 with consequential relief to reinstate the petitioner w.e.f. 1.03.2011.

6. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that opposite party no.2 has rightly made observation by d