IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10218 of 2018 CNR No. ODHC010326462018 Rama Chandra Bhoi …. Petitioner Mr. N.N. Mahapatra, Advocate -Versus- The Commissioner-cum- Secretary Department of Cooperation, Govt. of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Brahma, ASC Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate for OP Nos.4&5 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:08.05.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:27.08.2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dated 12th April, 2018 at Annexure-5 passed by opposite party No.2 communicated to him and also the order of compulsory retirement from service vide Annexure-8 and to direct approval of his promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary, Bhojpur Cooperative Society pursuant to the resolution dated 25th June, 2012 working as such since 1st June, 2012 and furthermore to issue a direction to opposite party No.4 to release differential amount of salary as against the said post in his favour with such other order/orders as this Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is pleaded on record that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Salesman of the Cooperative Society by letter AFR WP(C)/10218/2018 ODHC010326462018 2026:OHC:71 of appointment dated 1st April, 1989 issued by the Secretary of the Society and was working as such and after twelve years of his service, he was directed by order dated 16th November, 2002 of opposite party No.2 to continue as Night Watchman in that society and thereafter, on account of resolution dated 25th June, 2012 of the Board of Management of the Society, was promoted to the vacant post of Assistant Secretary and has been officiating as the Assistant Secretary (In-charge) w.e.f. 1st June, 2002 and since then waiting for necessary approval of such promotion by opposite party No.3, which was finally refused vide Annexure-5. 2.1. The petitioner while working as the Assistant Secretary (In-Charge), Bhojpur, Cooperative Society, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for misconduct with the allegation that he tampered records in respect of loan transaction and for that, he was placed under suspension by the order of the President of the Cooperative Society in the year 2016 and in that connection, an enquiry was conducted, wherein, opposite party No.3 submitted the report as per Annexure-1. According to the petitioner, opposite party No.3, after considering the enquiry report submitted to him, he being the custodian of the records of the Society and though not responsible for tampering of records actually done by the loanee, which amounts to negligence in duty, directed his reinstatement, however, with a warning issued and such intimation by letter dated 24th June, 2016 i.e. Annexure-2 was given to the Chief Executive of the Society requesting him to place the matter before the Management. Pursuant to Annexure-2 of opposite party No.3, a meeting was held on 30th December, 2016 in presence of the President and other Members of the Society and therein, a decision was taken to reinstate the petitioner in service. A copy of the said decision is at Annexure-3. After reinstatement, the petitioner approached opposite party No.3 for approval of his promotion several times with representations and waited for nearly six years and when no decision was taken thereon, W.P.(C) No.3286 of 2018 was filed by him which was disposed of by order dated 9th March, 2018 with a direction to the Authority concerned to consider his such grievance upon receiving a fresh representation within the stipulated period, in compliance whereof, representation was submitted on 15th March, 2018 with all relevant documents along with a copy of the writ petition for a decision in the matter of granting approval to his promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary of the Society. A copy of said representation is at Annexure-4. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.3 disposed of the representation without considering the plea of the petitioner in proper perspective and intimated the same to the Chief Executive of the Society by letter dated 12th April, 2018 i.e. Annexure-5 with a copy of the same sent to him indicating therein that the administrative approval to any such promotion was not accorded for having not followed the guidelines laid down in the Circular issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, namely, opposite party No.2 requesting further to submit a fresh proposal in terms thereof. 2.2. As per the petitioner, while considering approval of his promotion, opposite party No. 3 has relied on the Circular, which has been issued vide Memo No. 2858 dated 7th February, 2011 prescribing therein certain guidelines governing the appointment and other service conditions of the employees of the Cooperative Societies and referring to the same, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5 is passed. A copy of the said Circular is at Annexure-6. The approval to the promotion was refused by opposite party No.3 referring to Clause-5 of the Circular, whereby, an appointment Committee is required to be constituted to recommend promotion but the same is not applicable to him for the fact that it is not an appointment but a promotion to the post of Grade-II, rather, Clause-12 thereof is applicable, which stipulates seniority-cum-merit as the criteria for promotion and followed by grant of approval. The plea of the petitioner is that he was promoted by the Society vide resolution dated 25th June, 2012 of its Managing Committee and has been working in such capacity w.e.f. 1st June, 2012 and the same was only to receive approval and therefore, the impugned decision vide Annexure-5 is erroneous, illegal and thus, liable to be interfered with not being tenable in law. 2.3. The petitioner though worked as the Assistant Secretary (In-Charge) of the society since the date of his promotion but in spite of direction to opposite party No.4 by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society by letters dated 30th August, 2018 and 8th November, 2018 (Annexure-7 series) to release his salary for the post, it has not been complied with. Not only that, despite the Court’s interim order dated 13th July, 2018, the service of the petitioner was terminated in an illegal manner without providing him any opportunity of hearing but by a resolution dated 11th October, 2019 directing his compulsory retirement communicated by letter dated 11th October, 2019 (Annexure-8). Under the above circumstances, not only the refusal to grant approval to the petitioner’s promotion but also the decision towards compulsory retirement to be illegal, hence, are to be declared void with consequential directions issued even for release of the differential salary in his favour while working against the post of Assistant Secretary (In-Charge) of the Society. 3. Opposite party No.3 filed the counter and pleaded therein that the writ petition is not maintainable both on facts and law disputing each and every assertion of the petitioner stating the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Secretary by resolution dated 25th June, 2012, however, a detailed guidelines governing the service conditions of the employees of Cooperative Society have been issued as per the Circular i.e. Annexure-6 and the Board of Management did not follow the same and therefore, opposite party No.3 intimated about denial of administrative approval to it and instead suggested to submit a fresh proposal in accordance therewith and therefore, no illegality has been committed in that regard. It is further pleaded that Clause-5 of the Circular relates to administrative approval in case of promotion as well and it was not complied with and in so far as Clause-12 thereof is concerned, it deals with the promotion of the employees of the Society and for every promotion, the Appointment Committee is to take decision and in the meantime, by the order dated 30th December, 2022 (Annexure-A/3), the State Government clarified that the ARCS/DRCS cannot issue approval order against the appointment to any posts other than the Chief Executive Officer and therefore, opposite party No.3, for that matter, does not have the power to accord approval of promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary as claimed by the petitioner. The plea of opposite party No.3 is that the Managing Committee shall be competent to consider promotion subject to compliance of Clause-12 and since such promotion of the petitioner was allowed by the Management and not through the Appointment Committee and recommended in terms of the rules, promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary of the Society was declined and thereafter, for misconduct, it was followed by the order of compulsory retirement vide Annexure-8. 4. In reply to the above, a rejoinder affidavit is filed by the petitioner to the counter of opposite party No.3 and it has been reiterated therein that by a resolution dated 25th June, 2012, the Management of the Cooperative Society considered his promotion following the guidelines in terms of Clause-12 of the Circular dated 7th February, 2011 issued by opposite party No.2 and since it is a case of promotion and not appointment, Clause-5 thereof is not at all applicable. It is responded further that opposite party No.3, though, on one hand, refused grant of approval to the promotion but at the same time, directed opposite party No.4 to submit a fresh proposal following the guidelines laid down in the Circular dated 7th February, 2011(Annexure-6) and it is not that, anywhere, in Annexure-5 it is mentioned that opposite party No.4 do not have jurisdiction under the Act to grant approval but without complying the aforesaid direction, he alleging misconduct was compulsorily retired vide Annexure-8 by not following the principles of natural justice. As further pleaded therein, for creation of new posts in the Cooperative Society, prior approval of opposite party No.2 is necessary but the post to which the petitioner was promoted was an existing one, permanent and substantive lying vacant and hence, further approval for appointment is not required under law. The petitioner’s plea is that the stand of the Society is that opposite party No.3 does not have the power to accord the approval vis-à-vis promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary is not correct, rather, misconceived, inasmuch as, the said authority has no jurisdiction to grant approval to any post of the Society other than the post of Chief Executive of the society but in the case at hand, it is not about any appointment but relates to promotion and hence, the authority is competent to consider it and that apart, the petitioner has not been paid salary from 2012 till 2019 despite having discharged the duties of the Assistant Secretary (In-Charge) of the Society. 5. A separate counter is filed by opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 and the same is gone through and it is pleaded therein that the petitioner was removed from service for his misconduct and nefarious activities detrimental to the interest of the Society and therefore, no malafide or illegality should be attributed to them. It is alleged further that the petitioner was involved in tampering of records of the Society and therefore, he was placed under suspension and later was directed to be reinstated in service and upon such reinstatement, the promotion is demanded and it has been rightly held by opposite party No.3 that appointment/promotion shall have to be considered by the Managing Committee to any posts in the Society and since the Management did not follow the guidelines, correctly declined the administrative approval to the promotion of the petitioner and to submit a fresh proposal vide Annexure-5 which is challenged. It is further alleged that during the pendency of the writ petition, on 9th October, 2019, the petitioner entered inside the Office of the Society under intoxication, abused the Data Entry Operator, Peon and Watchman in filthy language and also threatened them and caused damage to computer and other articles which was informed to the Authority concerned followed by an advice to lodge an F.I.R. against him and accordingly, Khariar P.S. Case No. 273 of 2019 was registered and considering the above complaint and allegations, a meeting was convened by the Management in the Office of opposite party No.5 and therein, a resolution was passed to go for his compulsory retirement and accordingly, it was followed by Annexure-8. A copy of the said resolution and also the F.I.R. is at Annexure-A/4 series. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after reinstatement, the petitioner was considered for promotion and it was on the principles of seniority cum- merit and thereafter, the same was placed for administrative approval but it has been erroneously declined and intimated vide Annexure-5 on the premise that the guidelines issued and laid down in Memo No. 2858 dated 7th February, 2011 of Cooperative Society, Orissa have not been followed. It is also contended that the very removal of the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained in law, inasmuch as, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to him before a decision on compulsory retirement. The contention is that the petitioner was promoted to a vacant post of Asst. Secretary of the Society by a resolution dated 25th June, 2012 of the Board of Management and nearly after four years he was placed under suspension by the order of the President of the Society but ultimately stood exonerated and reinstated whereafter approval to the promotion was sought for but it has been denied on the ground that the guidelines of the Circular i.e. Annexure-6 have not been duly followed. It is contended by Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel that the promotion is permissible by a decision of the Board of Management of the Society and it needs approval of the Authority and for that, Clause-5 of the Circular is not to apply and hence, the impugned decision denying approval followed by decision on compulsory retirement of the petitioner is legally not sustainable, all the more when, such removal is without following the principles of natural justice. The impugned decisions are liable to be quashed directing reinstatement and promotion at the earliest. 8. Recorded the submission of Mr. Brahma, learned ASC for the State. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 justifies the decision towards denying promotion vide Annexure-5 due to want of a decision by the Managing Committee in terms of the Circular i.e. Annexure-6. It is also contended that removal of the petitioner from service is justified for the misconduct and mischief committed with an incident reported at the local P.S. The conduct of the petitioner could not have been tolerated, hence, by a resolution, compulsory retirement was recommended as further submitted and therefore, it cannot be said that the Authority concerned was at error in considering his removal from service. No reply is filed by opposite party No.2. 9. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Court is to examine, whether, the Authority concerned ought to have granted approval to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Secretary, Bhojpur Society, he having been promoted by a resolution of the Board of Management of the Society dated 25th June, 2012 and if at all, any such decision on his compulsory retirement vide Annexure-8 is justified? Before considering the plea of the petitioner and stand of the State and opposite party Nos. 4 & 5, in particular and in view of the response of opposite party No.3 on record, this Court is inclined to extract the relevant guidelines to apply to the employees of all the PACS including ACS/FSCS in the State of Orissa w.e.f. 7th February, 2011 issued by a Circular under the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 and the same are reproduced herein below: “5. Appointment: (i)The Managing Committee shall be the appointing authority of all employees; (ii) For appointment to any post there shall be an Appointment Committee consisting of the Following Members: (a) President of the Society-Chairman (b) Vice-President-Member (c) Representative of Financing Bank not below the rank of Branch Manager- Member (d) One elected member duly authorized by the Committee of Management-Member (e) Representative of the concerned Circle Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies not below the rank of SARCS-Member (Convenor) (iii) The Managing Committee shall make appointment of employees on the recommendation of the Appointment Committee. 6. Mode of Appointment: (i) (a) Grade-1 post: The Grade-1 post shall be filled up by direct recruitment or deputation or promotion as the Managing Committee may decide in consultation with the Financing Bank. (b)In case of direct recruitment, the candidates having the minimum qualification of graduation from a recognized University shall be eligible for consideration, and (c)In case of promotion, the Grade-II employees of the Society with minimum qualification of intermediate or +2 Arts, Science or Commerce and with minimum of 5 years experience in the Grade-II posts having clean service records would be eligible for consideration. Page 12 of 21 Provided that the minimum educational qualification prescribed under this clause shall not apply to the employees holding the Grade- II post prior to issue of these guidelines, for promotion to the Grade-I post. (ii)(a) Grade-II posts: The post of Grade-II shall be filled up by direct recruitment or promotion as the Managing Committee may decide, (b)In case of direct recruitment, the candidate having the minimum qualification of Intermediate or +2 Arts, Science or Commerce shall be eligible for consideration, and (c) In case of promotion, the Grade-III employees of the Society with minimum qualification of Matriculation and with minimum five years of experience in Grade-III post having clean service records shall be eligible for consideration. Provided that the minimum educational qualification prescribed under this clause shall not apply to the employees holding the Grade- III posts prior to issue of these guidelines for promotion to the Grade-II posts. (iii) Grade-III posts: the post of Grade-III shall be filled up by direct recruitment. The minimum qualification shall be 8th Class pass. 12. Promotion: Promotion shall not be claimed as a matter of right. Where vacancies are to be filled up by promotion, the same may be considered for promotion from just below category or post on the basis of ‘seniority-cum-merit’ subject to the provision in these guidelines. The employees who are involved in misappropriation/embezzlement of funds of the society and involved in criminal case, shall not be considered for promotion. The Managing Committee shall be competent authority to consider promotion subject to the provisions in these guidelines.” 10. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that Clause-5 of the Circular applies to appointment and consideration of the same by the Appointment Committee and the mode of appointment is prescribed in Clause-6 thereof, whereas, the aspect of promotion is to be dealt with in terms of Clause-12 to any such post on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to the provisions of the guidelines. Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, claims that for the approval of the promotion, there is no need for a decision by the Appointment Committee which is meant for appointment of the employees by the Managing Committee upon receiving its recommendation. According to Clause-5, the President of the Society shall be Chairman of the Appointment Committee with other Members besides a representative of the concerned Circle not below the rank of SARCS and on receiving recommendation, the Managing Committee shall consider appointments. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is not one of appointment but promotion. In so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he was promoted to Grade-II post by a resolution of the Board dated 25th June, 2012. On a reading of the impugned letter at Annexure-5, this Court finds that the petitioner’s promotion was not approved since it was not considered in terms of Clause-5 of the Circular. It is made to understand that such a decision is on the premise that appointment/promotion to any such posts in the PACS shall be considered only upon receiving recommendation of the Appointment Committee. Such is the view of the authority concerned as made to reveal from Annexure-5. 11. In case of any appointment to the posts, it is considered by the Managing Committee of the Society after receiving the recommendation of the Appointment Committee. On a combined reading of the relevant Clauses of Annexure-6, this Court finds that a promotion shall not be claimed as a matter of right and vacancies are to be filled by such means on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. As further stipulated therein, promotion shall not be considered if any of the employees is/are involved in a misappropriation/embezzlement of funds of the Society and involved in a criminal case and furthermore, the Managing Committee is the competent authority to deal with the same subject to the provisions of the guidelines. The petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 2016 on an allegation of tampering of records but was reinstated in absence of his involvement in any financial irregularities and thereafter, he received the promotion and its approval was sought for. In view of the resolution of the Board and since such promotion was allowed by a resolution dated 25th June, 2012, it is claimed that the petitioner after promotion was posted as Assistant Secretary (In-Charge) of the society and discharged the duty from 25th June, 2012 till 2019 without any salary paid to him, to which, he is otherwise eligible and entitled to, but in the meantime, he was removed and compulsorily retired after an incident, with respect to which, an F.I.R. was lodged against him. 12. Considering the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 4 & 5, this Court is inclined to agree with the contention advanced by him to the effect that any such approval to the promotion of the petitioner was permissible only in terms of Clause-5 of the Circular since it is related to appointment and also promotion. According to Clause-12 of the Circular, promotion is considered by the Managing Committee which is the competent authority. In other words, the Court is not inclined to accept the argument of Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no need for compliance of Clause-5 while considering promotion of an employee of the Society, rather, the same is sine qua non and rightly, therefore, it did not receive approval. The Managing Committee has the competence to consider promotion. On a reading of Clause-12 of the Circular, the Court finds that the promotion may be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit but subject to the provisions of the guidelines issued. The Court is inclined to accept the argument that the expression as occurring therein is also to include a case of promotion for a decision where compliance of Clause-5 thereof is necessary. 13. The management of a Cooperative Society under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 (shortly as ‘the Act’) is vested with the Board of Management. Under Section 2(ff) read with Section 28 of the Act, the Committee means the Governing Body or Managing Committee entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Society. The powers and duties of the Committee relate to general administration, appointments, training and education and to conduct regular General Body and Committee meetings. In other words, under the Act and the rules framed thereunder, the internal management, appointments and promotions of employees of the Society are primarily looked after by the Managing Committee and its designated Chief Executive. As to the Circular, Clause-5 deals with the composition of the Appointment Committee with the final decision thereon vested on the Managing Committee. According to Clause-6, mode of appointment includes promotion to Grade-I and II posts, which means, it cannot bypass Clause-5 of the Circular. The Managing Committee shall consider promotion following the guidelines of the Circular as stipulated in Clause-12 which obviously means scrutiny of such promotion complying Clause-5. It does mean, the ARCS must have to ensure strict compliance of Clause-5 of the Circular issued vide Annexure-6 before any promotion to a Grade-II post is finalized in a Primary Cooperative Society. it shall have to be understood that Clause-5(i) explicitly mandates that while the Managing Committee of the Society holds the official power to appoint or promote a staff, it cannot act independent of or bypassing statutory protocols, whereas, Clause-5(ii) dictates that promotion or appointment can only be processed through a legally constituted Appointment Committee and therein, the ARCS Representative serves as a Member (Convenor). To approve or clear promotion of an employee to a Grade-II post, the ARCS verifies that the employee recommended meets the criteria stipulated under the rules. If the Society processes a promotion not adhering to the procedural sequence complying Clause-5, it would lack statutory validity and in such situation, the promotion shall be rejected or nullified. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that promotion to a Grade-II post in a PACS must strictly follow the guidelines prescribed under Annexure-6 and it shall have to be processed with the compliance of Clause-5(ii) by the Appointment Committee as it cannot be accomplished independently by the Society and in the case of the petitioner, rightly, therefore, the ARCS intimated vide Annexure-5 about the difficulty in the administrative approval to his promotion though after a considerable delay and correctly, suggested a fresh proposal submitted by following the guidelines issued under Annexure-6. According to the Court, Clause-5 cannot be read in isolation but conjointly with Clauses-6 and 12 of the Circular to mean that promotion is also to be processed through the Appointment Committee. Any promotion made in violation of the procedure set out in Clause-5 is considered procedurally flawed and susceptible to cancellation. As to the petitioner, since there is such non- compliance of the guidelines issued under Annexure-6, the decision on denial of administrative approval to his promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary of the PACS is perfectly justified and in accordance with law. 14. Regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner, this Court is, however, having reservation. The Managing Committee being the Appointing Authority is no doubt possessed of the power to remove an employee of the Society. The Committee of the Society can pass a resolution to compulsorily retire an employee but cannot force him into compulsory retirement through an arbitrary or standalone resolution as the validity of such an action depends heavily on compliance of formal statutory frameworks and service regulations. The Managing Committee is the supreme administrative body or the designated Appointing Authority under the rules for the Society, hence, holds corresponding power to terminate the services of an employee. In fact, there is no challenge to the authority of the Committee in disengaging the petitioner by compulsory retirement. Rather, the challenge is to the action of the Committee for having not followed the principles of natural justice in providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. According to the Court, law is clear and conspicuous to the effect that an order of premature retirement is not a punishment, if it carries no stigma and consequently, the principles of natural justice-rule of audi alteram partem- do not apply. But the legality of the Managing Committee’s resolution depends on the nature and basis of the order which falls into the following categories, such as, (i) if the Committee passes the resolution based on the employees’ overall service record and to maintain administrative efficiency, the action on removal is fully permissible without hearing; (ii) but if the Committee uses compulsory retirement as a short cut to punish an employee for specific misconduct, the resolution is not lawful. 15. According to the rulings of the Apex Court reiterated in Sushil Sharma Vrs Union of India 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1501, principles of natural justice have no role to play because the employee does not lose any acquired retiral or pensionary benefits but for that, a subjective satisfaction shall have to be arrived at taking into account the employee’s entire service record to weed out dead wood, but where, the resolution mentions allegations, casts aspersion on integrity or is passed as a major penalty without conducting a departmental enquiry, it becomes punitive. In view of the settled principles of law discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that compulsory retirement cannot be used as an alternative to disciplinary action to bypass a fair hearing to the employee. Even where a hearing is not strictly mandatory for administrative retirements, a decision of the Managing Committee is not insulated from judicial review. An employee can challenge the resolution, if it is malafide driven by personal bias or arbitrarily passed without any supporting material or service records or perverse based on completely irrelevant considerations. If the Committee acts under the rules to remove an employee, who has lost utility, it is an administrative action. The decision by resolution of the Committee must be accordingly worded carrying no stigma and in that case, no personal hearing is needed and cannot even be demanded, except when, it is an action filled with malafide or bias or perverse. But, if the compulsory retirement is based on misconduct, negligence or an integrity issue, it is a penalty. In other words, if the resolution or background documentation explicitly mentions a penalty or stigma, it casts a stigma on the employee’s career. Using compulsory retirement as an alternative tool to a formal disciplinary action without a departmental enquiry or a hearing is illegal. To finally conclude, if in case, the resolution is backed by a clear objective assessment revealing that the employee has outlived his utility or that the performance of the employee has continuously deteriorated, administrative decision with removal is valid even without a personal hearing given to him as it carries no stigma for the fact that the decision is in the interest of the Society or public at large. If the Committee uses compulsory retirement as a penalty for any misconduct, it cannot simply pass a resolution to remove the employee and in such a case, it must have to conduct a full domestic disciplinary enquiry providing the employee an opportunity of hearing and also to respect one’s statutory right to appeal. 16. In the case of the petitioner, on a bare perusal of the resolution as at Annexure-A/4 series to the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos.4&5, it is clearly evident that opposite party No.5 lodged an FIR vide Khariar PS Case No. 273 dated 9th October, 2019 and it was primarily the cause of action to terminate the petitioner. Previously, the petitioner had been cautioned once for misconduct but not on account of any financial irregularities and after suspension, he was reinstated. Apparently, the impugned action was initiated just a day or two after the alleged incident of 9th October, 2019 and with the passing of the resolution i.e. Annexure-A/4 series, the decision was taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner, which is outrightly punitive carrying stigma and being a major penalty, in the considered view of the Court, the Managing Committee could not have bypassed a departmental action and enquiry. In view of the discussions hereinbefore, it is at last concluded that the resolution dated 11th October, 2019 is invalid and hence, cannot be sustained in law and therefore, it shall have to be interfered with. 17. Accordingly, it is ordered. 18. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as aforesaid. As a necessary corollary, the impugned resolution vide Annexure-8 is declared invalid with a direction to the opposite parties to restore the service of the petitioner in the post he held before promotion fixing his salary notionally and thereafter, to consider departmental action against him necessarily with a disciplinary proceeding initiated, if it is really expedient at this distant point of time, by following due procedure of law and any such proposal received towards his promotion in due course complying the guidelines issued vide Annexure-6. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to the costs. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita