IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK , W.A. No.3354 of 2024 In the matter of appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 from judgment dated 04.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12265 of 2021. ----------- Laxman Kumar Pradhan …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Respondents Advocates Appeared in this case For Appellant - Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate For Respondents - Mr. U.C. Behura, Addl. Government Advocate ------------ CORAM : MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 05.05.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. Appellant, a compulsorily retired forest official has preferred this Intra-Court Appeal for assailing a learned Single Judge’s order dated 04.11.2024 whereby his W.P.(C) No.12265 of 2021 has been negatived. In the said Petition, he had called in question the Compulsory Retirement Order dated 20.01.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant urged the following grounds in support of the Appeal. i. The impugned order is punitive in nature and therefore, could not have been entered without complying with the principles of natural justice. ii. The impugned order could not have been made, regard being had to the service credentials of the Appellant, such as two promotions, State awards and the like. iii. The committee constituted for adjudging the credentials of service did not advert to the relevant factors and thus there is a non-consideration of the material on record to the disadvantage of the Appellant. iv. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his submissions pressed into service a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo vs. State of Odisha1. He drew our attention to the provisions of Rule 71 of Orissa Service Code, which reads as under: “Provided that a Government servant may be retired from service any time after completing 30 years' qualifying service or on attaining the age of fifty years, by giving a notice in writing to the appropriate authority atleast three months before the date of which he wishes to retire or by giving the said notice to the said authority before such shorter period as Government may allow in any case. It shall be open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission 1. 2025 Live Law (Ori) 90. Page 3 of 9 to a Government servant who seek to retire under this rule, if he is under suspension or if enquiries against him are in progress. The appropriate authority may also require any officer to retire in public interest any time after he has completed thirty years' qualifying service or attained the age of fiffy years, by giving a notice in writing to the Government servant atleast three months before the date on which he is required to retire or by giving three months pay and allowances in lien of such notice:” 3. After service of notice, the official Respondents having entered appearance through the learned AGA resist the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and also the Compulsory Retirement Order, pointing out the circumstances into which they culminated. He contends that the credentials of the Appellant are not that rosy as sought to be made out; Appellant did not declare the acquisition and holding of assets by his spouse contrary to Rules; he is also facing VGR Case No.47 of 2019, which eventually is registered as Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.13 of 2020, in which after investigation, charge-sheet having been filed, charges also have been framed by the Special Court; the Committee comprising of high functionaries of the Government after having considered all relevant factors has recommended the compulsory retirement and the Government after examining all aspects of the matter, has issued the order of compulsory retirement and therefore, a deeper examination cannot be undertaken by this Court because of conventional constraints. Page 4 of 9 4. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: 4.1. The Appellant came to be appointed as Forester vide order dated 08.12.1986 & he secured his first promotion as Range Officer on 05.08.1996. Further, he got second promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests with effect form 26.09.2018. He has also secured twice the State Award as the best Range Officer for consecutive years 2015 & 2016. All these glories have not been reflected in the deliberations made by the Committee and that would constitute the first lacuna apparent on the face of the record. In Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo supra, the Co- ordinate Bench observed that if the Officer concerned was given a promotion despite adverse entries in ACRs, that is a fact weighing in his favour. It hardly needs to be stated, when relevant factors do not enter the fray of decision making, that makes the decision vulnerable for challenge. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant is right in telling us that a Compulsory Retirement cannot be levied casually as a substitute for holding the Disciplinary Enquiry, when allegations of misconduct are serious. True it is that there were wild allegations against the Appellant, for which the DE was proposed. However, after securing his reply, the idea of holding the same has been abandoned. Instead, the Committee referred to these abandoned proceedings while recommending for Compulsory Retirement. Page 5 of 9 This amounts to error apparent on the face of the record. We hastily add that the contention of learned AGA that no formal order of dropping of enquiry proceedings against the Appellant herein has been passed, pales into insignificance once he is compulsorily retired. 4.3. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment, writes Samaraditya Pal in Law Relating to Public Service, Third Edition, LexisNexis, at Pages 905 & 906, which read as under: “In service law 'punishment' has a special meaning. In short, it is penal action taken against an employee by way of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, with- holding of promotion etc. for misconduct after holding an enquiry. Punishment normally entails forfeiture of some accrued benefits and invariably casts a stigma on the employee concerned... In 1954, the Supreme Court in Shyamlal v. State of U.P.2 explained why premature retirement is not punishment. The Court gave the following reasons: ...(c) "Compulsory" retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity. (d) Service rules ... indicate that dismissal or removal is a punishment as it involves loss of benefit already earned and deprives the employee of pension which he has earned-whereas in compulsory retirement there is no such deprivation or loss. But this is not an absolute proposition. In a given case, ... if the Court is persuaded to hold that in substance, the order of compulsory retirement was made by way of punishment, then it would be void as, in such a case it would amount to dismissal or removal made in violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution (in the case of Government servants) and of the disciplinary rules (in cases of other public employment).” The reasoning of the Committee in recommending Compulsory Retirement runs counter to the above opinio juris and that would constitute second infirmity apparent on face of the record. 2. AIR 1954 SC 369. Page 6 of 9 4.4. Above view also gains support from the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo supra, which has secured imprimatur at the hands of Apex Court in SLP No.22484 of 2025 decided on 07.04.2026, wherein paragraphs 9 & 10 run as under: “9. Having considered the matter ... we find ourselves unable to sustain that portion of the impugned order which, while setting aside the compulsory retirement, simultaneously withholds reinstatement and monetary benefits pending the outcome of the fresh decision. 10. In our considered view, once an order of compulsory retirement is set aside, the legal consequence that flows therefrom is the restoration of the officer to his position in service, as though the order had never been passed. Once an order of compulsory retirement is set aside, the employer- employee relationship stands restored. Without such reinstatement, the officer would stand outside the service, and the Review Committee or the Full Court would be placed in the anomalous position of deliberating upon the continuance or retirement of a person who is not, in law, in service at all. Any fresh decision taken in such circumstances would be without a legally coherent foundation. The approach adopted by the High Court, of setting aside the order while simultaneously deferring its operative consequences, is therefore contradictory and cannot be sustained.” 4.5. The service of Forest Officials such as the Appellant are essential for protecting the Forests and environment, a constitutional duty lying on the State vide Articles 48A & 51A (g) in the light of T.N. Godavarman Tirumulpad3 Jurisprudence. Admittedly, the Appellant-Forest Official has put in a continuous service of about more than three decades. In his reply to the Charge Memo issued in a contemplated Disciplinary Enquiry, he had mentioned about the physical attack he suffered at the hands of Forest Poachers eventually resulting into his hospitalization twice. He has also mentioned about State accolade such as Chief 3 T.N. Godavarman Tirumulpad v. UOI, AIR 2012 SC 1254. Page 7 of 9 Minister’s Medals for protecting the Forest fauna & flora. That being the position, it does not stand to reason that an Official of this commitment should be thrown out from Public Service. 4.6. We also noticed from the record that the vigilance case is pending against the Appellant as mentioned above, wherein the Court has taken cognizance of the charge-sheet and framed charges. However, as on the date the Committee recommended and the Compulsory Retirement order came to be issued, the matter was still at the investigation stage. It hardly needs to be stated that what happened subsequently cannot infuse strength to an otherwise unsustainable order, ex post facto. Under the extant provisions of the Odisha Service Code, the criminal proceedings are deemed to have been instituted when the charge-sheet has been filed and not at any stage anterior thereto. Added, the Disproportionate Assets Case, we are told at the Bar, involves 23% excess income qua that from the known sources. Much is not necessary to deliberate on this when the said case is pending at the stage of trial. 4.7. Learned counsel for the Appellant is right in arguing that in the teeth of text of the Proviso to Rule 71, an order of Compulsory Retirement cannot be passed by the Government without examining the recommendation of the Committee, howsoever high its members be. The Government ought to have examined the credentials of the Appellant such as long service of three decades, procurement of two promotions on the basis of merit-cum- seniority, the trauma he underwent in protecting the Forests from poachers, his hospitalization and the State Awards conferred on him twice. Merely because a DA Case is pending, one cannot hastily jumped to the conclusion as to what would happen to the said case, especially when not even the charge-sheet was filed in the Special Court, when decision was made. Further, no action is taken against the Appellant allegedly for not reporting the acquisition of assets by his spouse. Non-reporting is a ground for denying promotion. However, in this case, two promotions granted to him is a matter of record. Such a grant renders the arguable misconduct into insignificance vide Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo supra. 4.8. All the above being said, there is force in the submission of learned AGA that even if the order of compulsory retirement is quashed, no reinstatement can be granted to the Appellant, who has already attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years pendente lite. He is also right in submitting that Appellant may not be awarded back wages till he comes out unscathed by securing an order of honourable acquittal in the vigilance case in terms of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan4 and P.V. Rudrappa vs. State of Karnataka5, because of that the ratio in Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo supra to that extent does not come to the aid of Appellant. The decision in this regard has to be taken by the State depending upon the kind of disposal of the said case. We are also told at the Bar 4. (2024) 1 SCC 175. 5. 2024 KHC 4013-DB. that because of the pendency of the said Vigilance Case, the terminal benefits of have not yet been settled. What applies to the payment of terminal benefits should equally apply to the claim for back wages for the period between compulsory retirement and the date on which Appellant would have normally retired after attaining the age of superannuation. In the above circumstances, this Appeal succeeds; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of compulsory retirement in view of the observations herein above made. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer