Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo has quashed the premature retirement order issued against a Judicial Officer under Government Notification No. 8351/HS dated 11.03.2022. The Court directed that the matter be remitted back for fresh reconsideration by the Jurisdictional Committee of Review, ensuring the officer is given a proper opportunity to present his case. The Bench held that the compulsory retirement had elements of a punitive nature, was not preceded by disciplinary proceedings, and lacked adherence to principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court issued a writ of certiorari, setting aside the impugned order and mandating a fresh evaluation in compliance with the procedural safeguards under Rule 44 of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service and Odisha Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The Bench clarified that its intervention was limited, and no reinstatement or monetary relief was being granted at this stage.

Also Read: Fit Case For Furlough Release As Petitioner Has Completed 20 Years Of Uninterrupted Incarceration Without Remission | Supreme Court Orders Three Month Conditional Relief

The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, challenged the order of premature retirement issued under Notification No. 8351/HS dated 11.03.2022, invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioner had joined the District Judiciary on 17.11.1997 as an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Second Class. He was successively promoted to Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 03.06.2010, Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 11.02.2011, Chief Judicial Magistrate on 01.08.2013, and District Judge on 29.07.2015. Further, he was granted Selection Grade w.e.f. 09.08.2020, with notification issued on 29.01.2021.

Upon turning 50, his service was reviewed in 2017 by the Review Committee, and he was permitted to continue in service. While presiding over the Family Court at Nabarangpur, he was prematurely retired at the age of 55, despite the standard superannuation age of 60.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the officer had an unblemished service record and that disciplinary proceedings previously initiated had ended without any penalty, which should not prejudice his service credentials. It was argued that the promotions granted over the years, particularly the recent one to the Selection Grade, invalidated any previous negative material that might have existed. The petitioner claimed that the compulsory retirement lacked notice as required under Rule 44 and was effectively punitive, violating principles of natural justice.

On the other hand, the State contended that the decision was taken following due process, including review by the Jurisdictional Committee and the Full Court. The impugned action was based on several factors including disciplinary proceedings, caste-related allegations made by a Night Watchman, complaints from the District Bar Association, and allegations of unruly behaviour and misconduct.

The State maintained that the compulsory retirement was a public interest decision made under Rule 44 of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service and Odisha Judicial Service Rules, 2007. It was argued that the nature of the Judicial Officer's role demanded a higher standard of conduct and that integrity concerns alone could justify premature retirement.

According to Rule 44, the Governor, in consultation with the High Court, may retire a judicial officer upon attaining 50 years of age by giving three months’ notice or equivalent salary. The State stated that all procedural requirements were met, and that no stigma was attached to the order.

The petitioner, however, argued that the absence of any adverse remarks in his CCRs/PARs, the lack of active disciplinary proceedings, and the sequence of recent promotions disqualified any assumption of misconduct or inefficiency justifying premature retirement.

The Bench considered sealed cover records and the chronology of service, which included regular career progression and a clean record. The allegations referenced in the retirement decision had already been inquired into and dropped. Specifically, the complaint by the Night Watchman, anonymous allegations from 2015, and boycott by the Bar Association were all examined and dismissed at various times by the Jurisdictional Committees.

The Court recorded that between the issuance of the Selection Grade notification in January 2021 and the premature retirement decision in February 2022, no new developments warranted such drastic action.

The Bench stated: "Rule 44 is in the nature of an exception to the general norm promulgated in Rule 42... The expression ‘absolute right’ is an anathema to the Rule of Law." It further recorded: "In a constitutionally ordained Welfare State, there is nothing like ‘absolute right’ or ‘absolute power’."

In response to the argument that judicial review is limited in such matters, the Court stated: "A Writ Court has to be doubly sure before sending [litigants] back, empty handed... That being said, a worthy cause brought before the Court cannot be turned down by quoting some jurisprudential theories."

Regarding the petitioner's record, the Court observed: "What grave thing happened during the short period between 29.01.2021 & 23.02.2022, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma."

The Bench found that: "Admittedly, there is not even one sporadic adverse remark in the CCRs/PARs of the petitioner all these years." It added: "True it is that he was ‘cautioned to be careful in future’. However, this is not a prescribed punishment... At the most, it is advisory in character and therefore cannot be construed as an adverse remark."

On the issue of complaints and allegations, the Court noted: "What punitive action was taken, pursuant to complaint of the Bar Association, is also not demonstrated." It observed that even boycott of the Court by lawyers could not justify punitive assumptions: "Such boycott is deprecable, since they do not have such a right."

The Court addressed the sealed records and summarized: "These promotions are on the basis of merit-cum-seniority... The Review Committee, after due deliberation, recommended his retention in service... Even this was accepted by the Full Court."

The Bench also observed: "It sounds strange that on 23.02.2022 the ‘Full Court/Review Committee’ resolved to prematurely retire the petitioner, there being absolutely no change of circumstance after he was accorded promotion to Selection Grade."

Regarding allegations of misconduct, the Court remarked: "Despite such wild allegations, no disciplinary proceedings were drawn up... These being wild allegations against a sitting Judicial Officer, ought to have been enquired into by constituting a disciplinary proceeding."

On natural justice, the Court remarked: "A compulsory retirement is no substitute for holding a disciplinary inquiry... once an action is punitive then the question arises as to whether such an order could have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the official. The answer has to be in the negative."

The Division Bench issued the following order: "In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of premature retirement of the petitioner. Matter is remitted back for consideration afresh keeping open all contentions, in the light of observations herein above made. Costs made easy."

Also Read: J&K High Court Orders Regularisation Of Contractual Employees With Over 10 Years’ Service | Denial Despite Similar Past Appointments Is Arbitrary | Legitimate Expectation And Fairness Principles Must Guide Public Employment

The Court further directed: "Matter merits a fresh look at and from the stage of Jurisdictional Committee of Review, of course after giving an opportunity of representation to the petitioner."

It stated that no monetary relief or reinstatement was being granted at this stage: "One cannot straightway seek reinstatement in service or grant of monetary benefits in lieu thereof, per se because the impugned order is being set at naught."

Regarding the officer’s service record, the Court stated: "Grievance of the petitioner as to violation of principles of natural justice also needs to be addressed... Who is grieving before us, is not just an ordinary public servant, but a Presiding Officer of a Court, who discharges functions involving abundant elements of sovereign powers."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Dr. Purusottam Chuli, P. Nath, A. Routray, Dr. S. Patnaik, and Ms. S. Patnaik, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera, Additional Standing Counsel

Case Title: Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo vs State of Odisha and others

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 11654 of 2022

Bench: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo