NARASINGH PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated September 28, 1987 in O. A. No. 44 of 1986 filed by the appellant assailing the order dated March 5, 1986 regarding his premature retirement from service.

(2.) The appellant joined service as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Orissa on April 1, 1956. He was promoted as Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis on March 2, 1962 and in 1963 his promotion on the post of Executive Engineer was regularised after obtaining the concurrence of the Orissa Public Service Commission. On May 21, 1978 he was promoted as Superintending Engineer on ad hoc basis and the said promotion was regularised in 1979 in consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commission. On November 30, 1984 the appellant was promoted as Chief Engineer (Irrigation) on ad hoc basis and the said promotion was regularised on the recommendation of the Orissa Public Service Commission on August 23, 1985. By order dated March 5, 1986 the appellant was compulsorily retired from service. The order of compulsory retirement of the appellant was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by the first proviso to Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code which empowers the State Government to compulsorily retire a Government servant after his attaining the age of 50 years or his completion of 25 years service if the State Government is of the opinion that his further retention in service was not in public interest. In the petition filed before the Tribunal the appellant has submitted that there was no material before the State Government to form the requisite opinion for his compulsory retirement from service. The said contention has not been accepted by the Tribunal.

(3.) The order of compulsory retirement of the appellant was passed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Review Committee duly constituted for that purpose. The said Review Committee in its meeting held on February 15, 1986 reviewed the service record of five officers, including the appellant, who had completed 50 years of age and it recommended premature retirement of the appellant. From the proceedings of the said meeting of the Review Committee (a copy of which has been placed before us by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Orissa) we find that the recommendations of the Review Committee are based on following circumstances:-