- (1.)This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order of compulsory retirement passed by the State Government on 27-10-1973 in exercise of powers under the First Proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code.
(2.)Petitioner was a member of the Orissa Secretariat Service and at the material time was Deputy Secretary to Government in the Irrigation and Power Department. The impugned order reads as follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred under the first proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of Orissa Service Code, the Governor of Orissa is pleased to order the retirement of Sri Ramesh Prasad Mahanti, O. S. S., Deputy Secretary to Government, Irrigation and Power Department on the expiry of 3 months from the date of service of this order on him."

Petitioner has impleaded in this proceeding the then Chief Secretary of Orissa (Opposite Party No. 2), the then Secretary to Government in the Home Department (Opposite Party No. 3), the then Additional Secretary to Government in Political and Services Department (Opposite Party No. 4), the then Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Irrigation and Power Department (Opposite Party No. 5) and several other officers of the State Government. He had made an application for the self-same relief in an earlier writ application being O. J. C. No. 891 of 1973, but the said application was withdrawn with liberty to apply afresh. The order of compulsory retirement has been challenged on several grounds. It has been alleged that the amendment to Rule 71 (a) under which the power is exercised is not a valid one; the procedure of review as provided under the administrative instructions to give effect to the Rule is impugned as having emanated from an incompetent source; the proceeding of the Review Committee has been challenged as being mala fide and biased; reliance has been placed on the entries in the Confidential Character Rolls of the petitioner which were alleged to be good and on the fact that soon before the order of compulsory retirement, petitioner had been given a promotion; and that the order of retirement was made to take effect before the full period of notice envisaged in the Rule had elapsed. In the long writ application, petitioner has freely extracted portions of several judgments to which in our view detailed reference need not be made.

(3.)In view of allegations of mala fides, opposite parties 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have filed personal affidavits denying every allegation of bias and mala fide raised by the petitioner against each of them. The return on behalf of the State has also been made by the Home Secretary in his. combined counter-affidavit.