The legal framework for compulsory retirement of a judicial officer in public interest involves subjective satisfaction of the government, limited judicial review, and the consideration of the officer's entire service record, performance, integrity, and character.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray,J. - The Petitioner, a Judicial Officer, has sought the quashing of an order of compulsory retirement and for all consequential service benefits.

2. The Petitioner joined as a Probationary Munsif on 2nd January, 1985 at Dhenkanal being selected as such in due process of selection. On 7th March, 1987, he was posted as J.M.F.C., Soro and then at different places from time to time. In the year 1992, while serving as J.M.F.C., Aska, his service was appreciated by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of Orissa, who recommended his promotion out-of-turn. The Petitioner was promoted out-of-turn as S.D.J.M., Kuchinda on 8th July, 1994. By efflux of time he was transferred to Jharsuguda as S.D.J.M., to Cuttack as 2nd Munsif and then promoted to the cadre of Civil Judge (Sr.Division) and posted as Registrar, Civil and Sessions Court, Bolangir on 27th September, 1999. He was then transferred as Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakhyanagar, Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Dharmagarh and as Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Koraput. While serving at Koraput he was directed to retire in public interest with effect from 22nd March, 2010 vide Notification dated 9th March, 2010 of Government of Orissa in Law Department under Annexure-1.

3. During his tenure two departmental proceedings bearing D.P.No.9/03 and 4/07 were initiated against the Petitioner. In the first proceeding, in the year 2003, five charges were framed relating to unauthorized retention of Government quarters, deliberate delay in making payment of bills towards purchase of law journals for Bolangir Judgeship, illegal counting of leave in his own leave account in the year 2000-2001 and lesser deduction of rent towards occupation of Government quarters, touching to gross misconduct and failure in due discharge of duties under Rules 3 and 4 of the Orissa Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1959.

4. In respect of D.P.No.4 of 2007, the charge against the Petitioner was that, he availed a loan in the name of one of his Class-IV servants without his knowledge and consent and did not repay the same till a complaint was made by the said Class-IV employee.

5. It is stated by the Petitioner that except those two disciplinary proceedings, there is no adverse entry in his ACR/CCR, which has been communicated to him. Of course, he was formally cautioned to be careful over some trivial issues. Further as a matter of fact, the Petitioner's out of turn inter se seniority over his senior colleagues has been quashed in a writ application by this Court. It is stated by the Petitioner that pending such departmental proceedings, he was removed by way of premature retirement as per Rule 44 of the O.S.J.S. and O.J.S. Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2007') without recognizing his commendable service as appreciated by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice under Annexure-2. It is further stated that no adverse entry in his service record has ever been communicated to him, except for the tenure at Kamakshyanagar and Dharmagarh and without offering him any single opportunity to explain his stance, he was removed prematurely from service at the age of fifty inflicting the stigma for no fault of his. He was not even viewed a show cause notice and without any opportunity of being heard, the order of compulsory retirement was passed within a few days of his confirmation in the substantive post of Civil Judge (Sr. Division).

6. Opposite Party No.2, the Register General of High Court of the Orissa, has filed a counter reply denying all the allegations made by the Petitioner. It is stated that the entire personal file of the Petitioner was placed before the Full Court on the administrative side and a conscious unanimous decision was taken to prematurely retire the Petitioner. Pursuant to the recommendation of the High Court, the State Government issued the impugned notification under Annexure-1. The High Court after considering the CCRs, overall work and conduct of the Petitioner, recommended his premature ret