Compulsory retirement must be executed by the appointing authority, following due legal procedures and cannot be imposed as a penalty without disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has made a prayer to quash the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ Superintendent of Police, Khordha directing his premature retirement from service with effect from 17.10.2019. He further seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties to reinstate him in service with all back wages and other admissible benefit.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief fact as narrated in the Writ Petition is as follows:

3. The Petitioner while working as the Sub-Inspector of Police, a Review Committee was constituted by the Opposite Party No.3/Superintendent of Police, Khurda for the purpose of the pre-mature retirement of Government servant. The Committee was consisting of the Superintendent of Police, Khurda, Additional Superintendent of Police, Khurda and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Khurda.

4. The review meeting was held on 17.10.2019 pursuant to the instructions laid down in Letter No.27037/Gen., dated 24th September, 2019 issued by the Principal Secretary, General Administration and Public Grievance Department, Government of Odisha to all Secretaries to Government.

5. As per the instructions contained in the aforesaid letter, the cases of Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ officers who completed 30 years of qualifying service or attained 50 years of age and/or attained 55 years of age, as the case may be, by 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 31st December of a year shall be reviewed by the Review Committee constituted pursuant to the instruction. Further, as per the instructions only when an employee is proposed to be retired should be reviewed 6 months before their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age as the case may be.

6. The premature retirement is provided under the proviso to Clause (a) of Rule-71 of the ORISSA SERVICE CODE on completion of 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age. Further, the objective of review is to weed out the persons of doubtful integrity or inefficiency from public service. The Review Committee ought to be careful wherever it recommends pre-mature retirement of an employee.

7. In the present case, the Review Committee for pre-mature retirement of Government Servant was held on 17.10.2019. While recommending the case of the present Petitioner for pre-mature retirement, the Review Committee observed that the Petitioner was found corrupt and demanding and accepting illegal gratification during discharge his public service. The Petitioner invited mental agony and constraint to the general public. Therefore, retention of the Petitioner in service would not be in public interest. He was found lacking in integrity and standard of efficiency required for discharging his duty. Accordingly, the Review Committee recommended the name of the Petitioner for pre-mature retirement for public interest.

8. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3/ Superintendent of Police, Khurda passed order No.915 dated 17.10.2019 for pre-mature retirement of the Petitioner with effect from 17.10.2019. The said order was passed in exercise of power conferred under Clause (a) of Rule-71 of the ORISSA SERVICE CODE observing that since the Petitioner had completed 30 years of qualifying service and already attained the age of 50 years has been retired from service with effect from 17.10.2019 PM allowing him 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of 3 months