The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant is based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer, and judicial interference is limited to specific grounds such as non-application of mind, mala fide, perversity, arbitrariness, or non-compliance with statutory duty.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J. - The Petitioner a Judicial Officer, has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 23rd August, 2012 under Annexure-1 and prayed for consequential reliefs.

2. The Petitioner was given compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 50 years in terms of Rule 44 of the OSJS and OJS Rules, 2007. He was an Officer in the cadre of Civil Judge and last worked as JMFC, Motu.

3. The Petitioner initially joined as Probationary Munsif, OJS-II on 17th November, 1997. He then worked in different capacities as Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class at different places in Odisha. On 21st June, 1999 the Petitioner joined as Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMFC, Sorada in the judgeship of GanjamGajapati and relieved on 6th May, 2002. He joined as JMFC, Daringibadi on 10th May, 2002 in the judgeship of Kandhamal-Phulbani and relieved from Daringibadi on 13th June, 2005. He served as Munsif at Sambalpur, Additional Civil Judge-cum-JMFC at Bhubaneswar, Sorada, Daringibadi, Cuttack and lastly at Motu. He also served as Inspector of Process-cum-JMFC at Dhenkanal and Sambalpur.

4. While serving at Sorada, an inquiry was conducted by the then District Judge, Ganjam in respect of the allegations regarding passing of discriminatory orders. The High Court directed that he should be let off with a warning to be careful in future and guard against such type of mistake. This was duly communicated to him.

5. Further while serving at Daringibadi, similar allegations were received against him. Based on the report of the District Judge, KandhamalPhulbani and the explanation offered by the Petitioner, disciplinary proceeding No.10 of 2006 was initiated against him as per the charges communicated in letter No.4428 dated 3rd July, 2007. In the said disciplinary proceeding, four charges were framed. Those were to the effect that the Petitioner dealt with bail petitions indiscriminately in different cases showing favour to a particular advocate. Secondly, he rejected the prayer for bail of an applicant arbitrarily and again granted him bail after one day. Thirdly, the Petitioner passed orders for release of property in a particular case arbitrarily. Fourthly, the Petitioner advanced the date in a criminal case, framed charges, examined witnesses, dispensed with accused examination, heard arguments and posted for judgment in one single day without giving any notice to the prosecutor.

6. The disciplinary proceeding continued and the District Judge, Kandhamal was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. As the order of compulsory retirement was issued during pendency of said proceeding, the same was dropped.

7. During his entire service career, the Petitioner was graded as 'Good' in the year 1999, 2004 and second part of the year 2010 only. For rest of the periods from 1997 to 2010, he was rated with average grading. The details as found from the personal file and CCRs of the Petitioner are as follows:

8. The Petitioner was not found suitable for promotion on repeated consideration by the Standing Committee. He was also not found suitable to get ACP-II scale and only granted ACP-I scale in the year 2002.

9. These are the admitted facts on record.

10. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that neither District Judge, Ganjam nor District Judge, Kandhamal have ever reported anything touching on the integrity of the Petitioner during his incumbency at Sorada and Daringibadi respectively. It is also submitted that such allegations against him with regard to irregularity and illegality ar