Orissa High Court
Sangram Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10427 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
..................
Sangram Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda,
Addl. Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing: 22.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 22.09.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
// 2 //
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.05.01.2021 so passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6, whereby Petitioner was given premature retirement in exercise of the power conferred under Rule-71(a) of the Odisha Service Code (in short 'code') from the date of the order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing in service as a Jailor-cum Superintendent in Malkanagir Sub-jail, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.09.12.2016 under Annexure-1. In the said proceeding after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 04.11.2019 under Annexure-3 with the following findings:-
"It is a fact that the Sub-jail, Malkangiri is heavily populated Jall. Being Jailor-Cum-Superintendent, he has to strive hard for smooth running of the jail administration. He has rectified most of his wrong accounting. Previously P.D.S rice was being supplied to Jails. Abruptly the same was stopped. So, the rice cost suddenly swelled-up. However, he has exceeded the diet cost fixed by Government He appears to have imperfect knowledge in accounts matter. So, he has committed some financial impropriety. However, the shortage of stock and excess payment to contractor have been recovered and accounted for. Hence, lenient view may be taken against him".
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after receipt of the enquiry report, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause and thereafter the 2nd show cause on 08.10.2020 under Annexure-4, by proposing the punishment of reduction to the rank of Asst. Jailor as provided under Rule-15 (10)(i)(b) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short 'Rules'.
4.2. It is however contended that after issuance of such 2nd show cause vide office order dtd.08.10.2020 under Annexure-
Page 2 of 14// 3 // 4 and after submission of the reply by the Petitioner on 23.10.2020 under Annexure-5, the impugned order of premature retirement was passed by Government-Opposite Party No.1 on 05.01.2021 under Annexure-6, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule-71(a) of the Code. Petitioner as per the impugned order was given premature retirement w.e.f. 5.1.2021.
4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.09.12.2016 was found not guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer and against the 2nd show cause issued on 08.10.2020 under Annexure-4, Petitioner submitted the reply under Annexure-5, there was no occasion to make the Petitioner retired prematurely vide the impugned order dtd.05.01.2021 under Annexure-6.
4.4. It is also contended that such an action taken by the Government- Opposite Party No.1 is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government in GA & PG Department in its resolution dtd.24.09.2019 under Annexure-7.
4.5. It is contended that Para-9 of the guideline dtd.24.09.2019 since was never followed in letter and spirit, the order of premature retirement is not sustainable in the eye of law.
"9.Premature retirement can be ordered in public interest only and not as a penalty to the employee concerned. Compulsory retirement is one of the major penalties listed under Rule 13 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 and before it is imposed on any employee, the procedure outlined the said Rules for imposition of major penalties must be complied with. Premature retirement under Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code is not and must Page 3 of 14 // 4 // not be used as a substitute that can be resorted to more conveniently"
4.6. In support of his contention so raised reliance was placed to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujurat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, reported in 2001(3) SCC-
314. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-11 and 12 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus:-
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(vi) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.
12. In the instant case, there were absolutely no adverse entries in the respondent's confidential record. In the rejoinder filed in this Court also, nothing has been averred that the respondent's service record revealed any adverse entries. The respondent had successfully crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 50 as well as at 55. He was placed under suspension 22-5-1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. The State Government had Page 4 of 14 // 5 // sufficient time to complete the enquiry against him but the enquiry was not completed within a reasonable time. Even the Review Committee did not recommend the compulsory retirement of the respondent. The respondent had only less than two years to retire from service. If the impugned order is viewed in the light of these facts, it could be said that the order of compulsory retirement was passed for extraneous reasons. As the authorities did not wait for the conclusion of the enquiry and decided to dispense with the services of the respondent merely on the basis of the allegations which had not been proved and in the absence of any adverse entries in his service record to support the order of compulsory retirement, we are of the view that the Division Bench was right in holding that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. We find no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, three months' time is given to the appellant State to comply with the directions of the Division Bench, failing which the respondent would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% for the delayed payment of the pecuniary benefits due to him".
4.7. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mohapatra vs. State of Odisha & Ors, reported in 2024(I) OLR-84. This Court in Para-43 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
"43. In the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai M Patel's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also cautioned that the termination of service on compulsory retirement shall not be used as a punitive measure coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. On a conspectus of the entire background facts authorities have deliberately resorted to a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry and accordingly the review committee without any justifiable ground has recommended for compulsory of the Petitioner. This Court is in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the interest of better administration dead woods in the public services are required to be chopped off by resorting to compulsory retirement while reviewing their cases periodically. Such appraisal by the review committee is subject to a rider that there must be enough ground to terminate the service of a Government Servant by giving him compulsory retirement. In the present case, the review committee has cited two disciplinary proceedings and a vigilance case which have been discussed in detail hereinabove, moreover after conclusion of the Disciplinary Proceedings the Petitioner was given promotion. Therefore, applying clause-7 of para-11 of Umedbhai M Patel's case (supra), once the Petitioner has been given promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, an inference to be drawn in favour of the Petitioner not in favour of the department. On an overall analysis of the service Page 5 of 14 // 6 // career as is evident from the materials on record, this Court is convinced that the Departmental Authorities have taken resort to a short-cut to remove the Petitioner from service by suggesting compulsorily retirement instead of initiating Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner. Therefore, the conduct of the Review Committee in recommending compulsory retirement fails to pass the test of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai M Patel's case (supra). Therefore, the decision taken by the review committee in the present case calls for interference by this Court".
4.8. Making all these submissions and placing reliance on the guidelines issued under Annexure-7, as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umedbhai M. Patel and the decision of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mohapatra as cited (supra), learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since no public interest was involved, Petitioner should not have been given premature retirement w.e.f. 05.01.2021 in exercise of the power conferred under Rule-71(a) of the Code. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and needs interference of this Court.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, contended that Petitioner in course of his employment under the State, a proceeding was initially initiated against him vide Departmental Proceeding No.5 of 2005 and thereafter another proceeding vide Departmental Proceeding No.8/2010. Not only that Petitioner was also involved in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.13, dtd.30.03.2017 and the further proceeding initiated vide the Memorandum dtd.09.12.2016 under Annexure-1.
5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner was proceeded with three nos. of departmental proceeding and was involved in a Page 6 of 14 // 7 // vigilance proceeding, taking into account the guideline issued by the GA Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-7, since it was found that Petitioner's further continuance is not in public interest, he was given premature retirement vide order dtd.05.01.2021 under Annexure-6, basing on the decision taken by the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.30.12.2020.
5.2. It is contended that taking into account the conduct of the Petitioner with initiation of three numbers of departmental proceedings and his implication in a vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was rightly given premature retirement vide order under Annexure-6 in public interest. It is accordingly contended that no interference is called for so far, as order of premature retirement is concerned.
6. Considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the stand taken by the Petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 18.08.2025:-
"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order passed in making the Petitioner retire prematurely vide order dtd.05.01.2021 under Annexure-6. Considering the ground of challenge, this Court vide order dtd.03.04.2023 directed learned Addl. Govt. Advocate to produce the relevant record pertaining to review of Petitioner's case.
4. Pursuant to the said order, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the record relating to the review of the Petitioner's case by the Committee.
5. This Court after going through the same, finds that the Committee recommended to retire the Petitioner prematurely on the ground that he had faced earlier two proceedings in D.P. No. 5/2005 and D.P. No. 8/2010. Another D.P. was also initiated in D.P. No. 23/2016 and Page 7 of 14 // 8 // Petitioner is also involved in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13 dtd.30.03.2017.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that no such proceeding in D.P. No. D.P. No. 5/2005 was ever initiated against the Petitioner and in D.P. No. 8/2010 he was exonerated vide order dtd.14.02.2013. It is also contended that Petitioner was never served with any notice in in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13 dtd.30.03.2017 and issue in D.P. No. 23/2016 is under challenge in the connected W.P.(C) No. 1489 of 2022.
7. Considering the submission made, this Court directs learned Addl. Standing Counsel to produce the final order passed in D.P. No. 5/2005 and 8/2010 as well as the status of in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13 dtd.30.03.2017 on the next date.
8. As requested by Mr. P.K. Panda, learned ASC, list this matter on 10th September, 2025.
9. Relevant record be kept with the learned Addl. Standing Counsel till the next date.
Free copy of the order be provided to Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for compliance."
7. Pursuant to the order so passed, learned ASC produced the instruction as well as the relevant file containing the decision taken by the Review Committee, in recommending to give premature retirement to the Petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule-71(a) of the Code.
8. This Court after going through the file so produced found that the proceeding file in D.P. No.5/ 2005 is not available with the Opposite Parties. It is also found that in the D.P. initiated vide D.P. No.8 of 2010, Petitioner was exonerated from the charges. With regard to the involvement of the Petitioner in the vigilance case, it is also found that by the time the Review Committee recommended to give premature retirement to the Petitioner in its proceeding dtd.30.12.2020 Petitioner was not yet charge sheeted and only the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.09.12.2016 was pending.
Page 8 of 14// 9 //
9. However, learned Addl. Standing Counsel considering the materials available in the file so produced, contended that since the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.30.12.2020 found that Petitioner is involved with three nos. of departmental proceeding and is also involved in the vigilance proceeding, the review committee rightly took the decision to give premature retirement to the Petitioner, so acted upon by the State-Opposite Party No.1, with issuance of the order dtd.05.01.2021 under Annexure-6. Decision of the Review Committee while dealing with the case of the Petitioner vide Item No.3 reads as follows:-
"3. Sri Sangram Kumar Navak, Jailor-cum-
Superintendent Two departmental proceedings had been instituted earlier against him (D.P. No. 05/2005 and D. P. No. 08/2010) for gross misconduct and dereliction of duty.
Departmental proceeding has been instituted vide memorandum No. 30181 dated 9.12.2016 and D.P. No. 23/2016 on the charges gross misconduct involving negligence and dereliction of duty, disobedience of orders and Rule-3 of the Odisha Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 and rule-159 of the Odisha Jail Manual, rule- 4 of the Odisha Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 and rule-9 and 103 of the OGFR in connection with excess expenditure of Rs. 11,41,265.00 on diet cost and other financial irregularities.
Involved in Koraput Vigilance PS case No. 13 dated 30.03.2017 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988/ 409 of the IPC on the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 12,89,447.00.
Departmental audit has suggested audit recoveries for a sum of Rs. 22,96,564.00 in three reports of the departmental audit( DAR No. 02/ 2015, No. 88/2016 and DAR No. 53/2020) pertaining to his incumbency as Jailor-cum-Superintendent of Sub Jail, Malkangiri.
While deliberating on the above cases, the committee also took into account paragraph 13 (iii) of the GA & PG Department Circular issued on 24.09 2019, which explains that reports of conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant may also form the basis Page 9 of 14 // 10 // for pre-mature retirement. The concept emanates from two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, extracted below in brief, for reference.
The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. RAMACHANDRA RAJU-VRS-STATE OF ODISHA (Appeal (civil) 5815 of 1994) was, The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case/ there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service but his conduct an reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed in STATE OF U P AND OTHERS VRS-VIJAY KUMAR IAIN (Appeal (civil) 2083 of 2002) that "if conduct of Government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in the public services, the Govt. has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest".
This, hence constitutes basis for consideration of pre-mature retirement of the above three officers on the grounds that their conduct is highly unbecoming of a Govt. servant. Their future continuance will not be in public interest as it lowers the image of Government in the eyes of public, thereby compromising efficiency in public service.
In view of the above, the Review Committee recommended for premature retirement of the above officers on paying three months' pay and allowances in lieu of statutory notice of three months.".
9.1. In support of his submission, learned ASC relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baikunthanath Das & Anr. vs. CDMO, Baripada & Another, reported in 1992(2) SCC-299. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-34 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
"34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(1) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, Page 10 of 14 // 11 // they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed
(a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.
(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years.
The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.
(2) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.
Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above"
10. To the submission made by the learned ASC, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that out of the 3(three) proceeding initiated against the Petitioner the final order passed in D.P. No.5/2005 was not available with the Committee. In D.P. No.8/2010, Petitioner was exonerated from the charges and in the vigilance proceeding Petitioner was not charge sheeted. Not only that in the D.P. initiated vide Memorandum dtd.19.12.2016 under Annexure-1, the Enquiry Officer suggested to take a lenient view.
It is accordingly contended that basing on the materials available with the Review Committee, the Committee could not have recommended to give premature retirement to the Petitioner in its proceeding dtd.30.12.2020, in the interest of public.
Page 11 of 14// 12 // 10.1. It is also contended that on the face of the order passed on 05.01.2021, Petitioner has not yet been extended with any benefit and in the meantime Petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation.
11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.05.01.2021 so issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule-71(a) of the Code. Vide the said order, Petitioner was given premature retirement w.e.f. 05.01.2021. Such an order was passed by the Government taking into account the decision taken by the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.30.12.2020.
11.1. This Court after going through the proceeding file of the review committee so produced, find that by the time the review committee recommended to give premature retirement in D.P. No.5/2005 was not available with the Committee. In the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide D.P. No.8 of 2010, Petitioner was exonerated from the charges. It is also found that in the vigilance proceeding in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.23 of 2016, Petitioner by the time the Review Committee took the decision was not yet charge sheeted.
11.2. It is also found that in the proceeding initiated vide departmental proceeding No.23 of 2016 under Annexure-1 the enquiry officer while submitting the report on 04.11.2019 under Annexure-3.
Page 12 of 14// 13 // 11.3. Placing reliance on the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Parties, it is the view of this Court that by the time the Review Committee took the decision to give premature retirement to the Petitioner in its proceeding dtd.03.12.2020 so acted upon by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 with issuance of the impugned order on 05.01.2021 under Annexure-6, there was no material available against the Petitioner showing that his further continuance is against public interest.
11.4. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Umed Bhai so followed by this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mohapatra and Para-(iii) of the Page-34 of the decision in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court the ground on which Petitioner's case was recommended by the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.30.12.2020 to give premature retirement to the Petitioner, so acted upon by the Government vide order dtd. 05.01.2021 under Annexure-6 is not only arbitrary but also mala fide in nature and accordingly not sustainable in the eye of law.
11.5. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.05.01.2021 so passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6. While quashing the said order and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that after such retirement of the Petitioner prematurely, Petitioner has not yet been extended with any benefit and Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the meantime, this Court held the petitioner entitled to get regularization of the period from 05.01.2021 to the date of retirement on notional basis. However, in view of the Page 13 of 14 // 14 // pendency of the proceeding under Annexure-1 and the order passed in the connected Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.1489 of 2022, Petitioner be extended with the provisional pension from the date of his retirement. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to complete the entire exercise within a period 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 22nd September, 2025/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:45:16 Page 14 of 14