IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33274 of 2022 Umesh Kumar Shasini …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Pani, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 12.05.2026 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging office order dated 10.08.2022, so issued by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order, petitioner was given premature retirement taking recourse to the provision contained under Rule-71(a) of the Odisha Service Code (In short “Code”). 4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner entered into service as a Jr. Engineer on 24.12.1992. While so p. 2 p. 2 continuing, petitioner was promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer and posted to Baitarani Irrigation Division, Salapada in the year 2013. It is also contended that during his entire service career from 1992 onwards till petitioner was implicated in a Vigilance Proceeding in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2022 dated 23.03.2022, petitioner was having a good CCR all through. 4.1. However, because of his implication in the aforesaid Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2022 dated 23.03.2022, petitioner when was arrested and remanded to custody on 23.03.2022, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 09.04.2022 under Annexure-2. 4.2. Thereafter, petitioner’s name was recommended to the committee to give premature retirement basing on the report submitted by the Internal Committee on 18.05.2022 under Annexure-B/1 and Review Committee dated 23.05.2022 under Annexure-C/1, petitioner was given premature retirement vide the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 under Annexure-3. 4.3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since from the initial date of his joining in Govt. service on 24.12.1992 till 23.03.2022, petitioner was having a good CCR all through, only because of his implication in the aforesaid Balasore Vigilance Proceeding, his name could not have been recommended to the committee to give him premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-71(a) of the Code. p. 3 p. 3 4.4. It is also contended that by the time petitioner was recommended to the committee, since petitioner was going to attain the age of 56 years, his date of birth being 29.05.1966, his name could not have been recommended in view of the provisions contained under Para-4 and 7 of the guideline issued by the G.A. and P.G. Department on 24.09.2019, Para-4 and 7 of the guideline reads as follows:- “4. The cases of Group-A & Group-B Officers on 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, on the 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and the 31st December of a year shall be reviewed by the Review Committees constituted in pursuance of these instructions. Similarly the cases of Group-C Officers and Group-D employees shall be reviewed on the 30th June and the 31st December of the year by the relevant Review Committee. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 7. The cases of Govt. servants covered under paragraph-4 above should be reviewed six 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 as per the following time schedule. Sl. No. Quarter in which review is to be made Cases of Officer/Employee completing 30 years of qualifying service on attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age Dateline of furnishing report to the G.A. & Department 1. January to March July to September of the same year 15th April 2. April to June October to December of the same year 15th July 3. July to Sept January to March of the next year 15th October 4. October to December April to June of the next year 15th January of the next year A register of officers/employees who are completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age is to be maintained. The register should be scrutinized at the beginning of every quarter by a senior officer in the Department/ Office and the review undertaken according to the above schedule. p. 4 p. 4 In addition to the above, the Secretary of the Administrative Department is also empowered to constitute internal Committees to scrutinize all the cases required to be reviewed in each quarter and finalize the specific cases to be reviewed. These Internal Committees will ensure that the service record of the employees being reviewed, along with a summary bringing out all relevant information, is submitted to the review committees at least one month before the due date of review. The administrative Departments shall furnish reports of every review conducted quarterly in respect of their own offices as well as all the offices functioning under their administrative control to the G.A & P.G Department in the format prescribed in Annexure-VI.” 4.5. It is contended that since by the time petitioner’s name was recommended to the committee, petitioner was going to attain the age of 56 years and accordingly his name could not have been recommended, has been accepted by this Court in a series of decisions more particularly in the case of Ratnakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha and Others. This Court in para 3.13 and 6.3 of the Judgment in Ratnakar Mallick has held as follows:- “3.13. It is contended that since by the time petitioner’s name was referred vide letter dated 10.11.2021 and the Review Committee recommended to give Premature Retirement to petitioner in its Proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11, petitioner had already crossed the age of 50 years, his case could not have been taken up by the Review Committee with such recommendation. It is contended that once a thing has been prescribed to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in that manner or not at all. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions: 1. Bernard Francis Joseph Vs. Government of Karnataka. 2. Independent Sugar Corporation Limited Vs. Girish Sriram Jeneja 3.Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. p. 5 p. 5 xxx xxx xxx 6.3. It is also found that by the time the Review Committee took the decision in recommending Premature Retirement to the petitioner on 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11, petitioner since had completed the age of 50 years, in view of the provisions contained under Para-4 read with Para-7 of the Resolution dated 24.09.2019 under Annexure-10, petitioner’s case could not have been taken up by the Review Committee. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited supra in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph, Girish Sriram Juneja and Checkmate Service P. Ltd., it is the view of this Court that case of the petitioner could not have been taken up by the Review Committee.” 4.6. Making all these submissions, it is contended that the impugned order of premature retirement needs interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that petitioner while continuing as an Assistant Engineer, when was implicated in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2022 dated 23.03.2022 and was remanded to custody, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 09.04.2022 under Annexure-2. 5.1. Since petitioner was involved in the Vigilance Proceeding with the allegation that petitioner has accounted for disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.1,42,07,260/- taking into account the gravity of the allegation, petitioner’s name was referred by the internal committee and basing on the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting held on 18.05.2022 under Annexure-B/1 by the Internal Committee and decision taken in the Review Committee on dated p. 6 p. 6 23.05.2022 under Annexure-C/1, petitioner was given premature retirement vide the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 under Annexure-3. 5.2. It is contended that since the Review Committee accepted the recommendation made by the internal committee in its proceeding dated 23.05.2022 under Annexure-C/1 and petitioner admittedly is involved in the Vigilance Proceeding, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the vigilance proceeding as on date no charge-sheet has yet been filed. Accordingly it cannot be held that petitioner is liable for the alleged allegations made in the FIR. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that petitioner entered into service as a Jr. Engineer, where he joined on 24.12.1992. Petitioner thereafter was promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer in the year 2013. While so continuing, petitioner was implicated in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2022 dated 23.03.2022 for the offence U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(b)/12 of the P.C. Act. 7.1. In the said proceeding, petitioner was arrested and remanded to the custody on 23.03.2022. Because of such arrest and remand to the custody, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 09.04.2022 w.e.f. p. 7 p. 7 23.03.2022. As found, subsequently petitioner’s name was recommended to the internal committee and the committee in its proceeding dated 18.05.2022 under Annexure-B/1, decided to refer the matter to the Review Committee with the following finding:- “Accordingly, his case may be referred for consideration of the Review Committee of DoWR in terms of Provisions of Rule-71(a) of Odisha Service Code read with GA & PG Department circular issued under letter No.27037/Gen dt.24.09.2019 as the officer concerned is clearly lacking in integrity and retention of such officer in service will not be in public interest.” 7.2. Subsequently, the Review Committee in its proceeding dated 23.05.2022 under Annexure-C/1, recommended to the Govt. to give premature retirement to the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-71(a) of the Code. Basing on such recommendation made by the Review Committee in its proceeding dated 23.05.2022 under Annexure-C/1, petitioner was given premature retirement vide the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 under Annexure- 3. It is found that by the time petitioner’s name was recommended to the Review Committee, petitioner was going to attain the age of 56 years, his date of birth being 29.05.1966. 7.3. Placing reliance on Para-4 and 7 of the Guideline issued by the GA and PG Department on 24.09.2019 and the decision in the case of Ratnakar Mallick so cited (supra), this Court is of the view that, since by the time petitioner’s name was recommended to the review Committee petitioner was going to attain the age of 56 years, p. 8 p. 8 his name could not have been recommended to the Review Committee, by the internal committee in its proceeding vide Annexure-B/1. 7.4. Not only that in the counter affidavit so filed, no material has been produced by the State, showing any adverse CCR of the petitioner for the period from 1992 till 23.03.2022. No document has also been produced by the State showing filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner in the aforesaid Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2022 with completion of the investigation. 7.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the ground on which petitioner was given premature retirement vide the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 under Annexure-3, is not sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing order dated 10.08.2022 under Annexure-3, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in his services with passing of a fresh order in that regard within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, the break period of service be regularized on notional basis and petitioner will not be held eligible to get any financial benefits save and except the service benefits as due and admissible. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev