The court held that compulsory retirement must be based on a comprehensive review of performance, not merely on pending allegations, ensuring due process is followed in such decisions.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. By filing the above noted writ application, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 under Annexure-5 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 and further for a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to allow the Petitioner to continue as Deputy Superintendent of Excise and In-Charge of Superintendent of Excise till his superannuation. The Order No.4388/Ex., Bhubaneswar dated 12.11.2021 has been issued in exercise of power under Rule 71(a) of the ORISSA SERVICE CODE thereby taking a decision to retire the Petitioner from service under the Government, on a review as he has attained the age of 55 years with effect from 12.11.2021, by allowing him three months pay and allowance in lieu of three months notice as provided in the aforesaid rules.

2. The impugned order dated 12.11.2021 under Annexure-5 is nothing but an order of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner from Government service on attaining the age of 55 years. Compulsory retirement as provided under Rule 71 (a) of the ORISSA SERVICE CODE is a tool to weed out employee of doubtful integrity or inefficient employee from public service to ensure efficiency in administration. Furthermore, a perusal of the guideline dated 24.09.2019, it appears that before coming to such a conclusion that an employee is not fit to continue in Government service, the Opposite Parties are required to review the performance of the petitioner upon a completion of 30 years of qualifying service or on attaining 50 years of age or on attaining 55 years of age. The decision to retire the Government employee, compulsorily has to be based on the performance of Government servant as is reflected in his Annual Character Role/ Performance Appraisal Report/ CCR. Moreover, the law in this regard is quite well settled that if a Government Employee is given promotion despite the employee having adverse entries made in his ACR/ PAR/ CCR, such fact would go in favour of such Government Employee. In the present case, the Petitioner was given promotion on 20.06.2019 to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Excise under Annexure-6 on the basis of his performance, merit and suitability. Moreover, he had been entrusted with an Additional charge of In-Charge of Superintendent of Excise. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision under Annexure-5 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

3. The genesis of facts leading to filing of the present writ petition, in a narrow compass, is that the Petitioner was working as Deputy Superintendent of Excise and was In-Charge of Superintendent of Excise of Deogarh District in the State of Odisha. Initially, the Petitioner was appointed by following regular recruitment process as Sub-Inspector of Excise on 09.09.1996 in the scale of pay of Rs. 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200/- + Grade Pay of Rs.1350/- per month. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined in the cadre on temporary basis vide notification/ office order dated 23.08.1996. Initially, he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Excise in the district of Deogarh and accordingly, the Petitioner submitted his joining report on 02.09.1996 and started discharging his duties.

4. While the Petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Excise in the d