The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 34865 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Trinath Mishra …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. J. Barik, Advocate Mr. C.K. Pradhan Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opp. Parties : PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 04.12.2025 & Date of Judgment: 04.12.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. D.N. Mahapatra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. J. Barik, learned counsel and Mr. C.K. // 2 // Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.21.02.2022 so issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-3 and rejection of the prayer of the Petitioner for his reinstatement vide order dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6. In terms of order dtd.21.02.2022 so issued under Annexure-3, Petitioner was given premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Odisha Service Code (in short Code) w.e.f.21.02.2022. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner entered into service as S.I. of Police, where he joined on 16.08.1985. While so continuing Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police w.e.f.28.02.2004 and to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f.30.12.2011. Petitioner while so continuing was given further promotion to the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police w.e.f.31.12.2018. 4.1. It is contended that taking into account the exemplary service career of the Petitioner, Petitioner was recommended for award of President’s Police Medal for distinguish service on the occasion of Page 2 of 14 // 3 // Republic Day, 2020 on 05.11.2019 under Annexure-8 series. Not only that Petitioner was also recommended to get the benefit of super time scale in the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police vide order dtd.16.11.2021 under Annexure-7 series. 4.2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that with such exemplary service career all through Petitioner because of his implication in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/22 dtd.16.02.2022 under Sec. 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(b)/12 of the P.C. Act, his name was recommended to the Review Committee to give premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code. The Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.19.02.2022 under Annexure-9 series when recommended to give premature retirement to the Petitioner, Petitioner was given such retirement vide the impugned order dtd.21.02.2022 under Annexure-3. 4.3. It is contended that seeking his reinstatement with quashing of order dtd.21.02.2022, Petitioner initially made a representation before Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-4 and thereafter approached this Court seeking its consideration in W.P.(C) No. 12883 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.01.05.2023 under Annexure-5, when directed for its consideration, the same was rejected vide order dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6. Page 3 of 14 // 4 // 4.4. It is the main contention of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that save and except the implication of the Petitioner in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.13/2022 dtd.16.02.2022 Petitioner was never proceeded with in any departmental or criminal proceeding as he was given promotion all though with his name being recommended to get the President’s medal as well as to get the benefit of super time scale of pay in the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police. It is accordingly contended that only on his implication in the aforesaid vigilance case, Petitioner’s name could not have been recommended to the Review Committee for giving premature retirement following Rule 71(a) of the Code. 4.5. Another submission was also made that by the time Petitioner was so recommended to the Review Committee since he had attained the age of 58 years, as per the guideline issued by the G.A. & P.G. Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-D/4, Petitioner’s name could not have been recommended in view of the provisions contained under Para 4 r.w. Para 7 of the said guideline. Para 4 and 7 of the guideline reads as follows:- “4. The cases of Group A & Group B Officers on their completing 30 years f 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 Page 4 of 14 // 5 // shall be reviewed by the Review Committee 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. xxx xxx xxx 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.” 4.6. With regard to non-compliance of the provisions contained under Para 4 & 7 of the guideline, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Ratnakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.
Decision
(W.P.(C) No. 14146 of 2022, disposed of on 28.10.2025. This Court in Para 3.13 to 3.16 and 6.3 of the Judgment 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: Page 5 of 14 // 6 // 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. 3.14. In the case of Bernard Francis Joseph, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-33 has held as under:- “33.It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone.” 3.15. In the case of Girish Sriram Jeneja, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-54 & 83 has held as under:- 54. xxx xxx xxx In the present interpretive exercise, one also needs to be mindful of the legal principle which says that where a statute requires one to do a certain thing in a certain manner, it must be done in that particular manner or not done at all. xxx xxx xxx 83. Whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to a specific consequence, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and the specified consequence should not follow.” 3.16. In the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-49 has held as under:- Page 6 of 14 // 7 // 26. xxx xxx xxx It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way.” 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.” 4.7. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Pratap Kumar Samal vs. State of Odisha & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 9554 of 2022 disposed of on 28.10.2025). This Court in Para 6.1 and 6.2 of the said judgment has held as follows:- “6.1. It is not disputed that such a decision to give premature retirement to the Petitioner was taken, taking into account the Instruction issued by the Government in the G.A and P.G Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure4. As provided in the said Instruction, case of Group-B and Group-C Officers can be taken to give pre-mature retirement on their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years and/or 55 years. Page 7 of 14 // 8 // 6.2. As provided under Para-7 of the said Instruction, such a review is required to be made 6(six) months before completion of the 30 years of qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years and/or 55 years of age. It is not disputed that by the time the Review Committee Page 35 of 39 recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner in its Proceeding dt.13.11.2021 under Annexure-B/2, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Para-4 & 7 of the Instruction and the decision in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph, Girish Sriram Jeneja & Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that case of the Petitioner could not have been taken up by the Review Committee on 13.11.2021, as by that time Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years. Therefore, the very basis to place the matter before the Review Committee on 13.11.2021 with the recommendation so made under Annexure-B/2 and the consequential action taken by Opp. Party No.2 in issuing the impugned order dtd.18.11.2021 under Annexure-3, as per the considered view of this Court stands vitiated.” 4.8. It is accordingly contended that since by the Petitioner’s name was recommended, he had already attained the age of 58 years, in view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Ratnakar Mallick & Pratap Kumar Samal as cited (supra), Petitioner’s name could not have been recommended to the Review Committee with due acceptance of the recommendation by issuing the impugned order dtd.21.02.2022 under Annexure-3. Page 8 of 14 // 9 // 4.9. It is also contended that there was no public interest involved in giving premature retirement to the Petitioner. Making all these submissions learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order issued under Annexure-3 further confirmed vide order dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Though it is not disputed that Petitioner after his appointment was extended with the benefit of promotion to different rank at different point of time and his name was also recommended to get the President’s Medal as well as super time scale of pay. But it is contended that since Petitioner was involved in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/22 dtd.16.02.2022 for the offence under Sec. 13(2) r.w. 13(i)(b)/12 of the P.C. Act and assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 9,05,29,073/- was found against him i.e. around 50% above the normal source of income, his name was recommended to the review committee to give premature retirement to the Petitioner. 5.1. Since the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.19.02.2022 recommended to give premature retirement to the Petitioner, the same was acted upon by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 with issuance of the Page 9 of 14 // 10 // order dtd.21.02.2022 under Annexure-3. Stand taken in Para 10 & 11 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “10. That in reply to the averments made in Para-10 to Para-13 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, the GA & PG Department has issued circular No.27037/Gen dated 24/09/2019 prescribing the criteria and guideline for Premature Retirement of Government servants. The aim of the Circular is to weed out the officers and employees of doubtful integrity or inefficiency from public service to ensure efficiency in administration & not to protect the interest of the employee having doubtful integrity. In the instant case, during raid by the Vigilance organization, it is found that the petition possess huge assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he could not explain satisfactorily. This proves that his integrity is not beyond doubt. A copy of the G.A. & P.G. Department Circular No. 27037/Gen dt.24.09.2019 is annexed herewith as Annexure-D/4. The premature retirement is allowed to the petitioner only for the sake of public interest under the provision of Circular mentioned above as per the recommendation of the Review Committee prescribed for the purpose. 11. That in reply to the averments made in Para-14 to Para-16 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, the review committee duly considered institution of Cuttack vigilance PS case No. 13/2022 U/S 13(2) r/w 13(1) (b)/12 of PC Act 1988 against the Sri Mishra for possession of huge assets disproportionate to his known source of income, the conduct which is unbecoming of a government servant and was of view that his continuance in service would be amenance to public service and injurious to public interest. Accordingly the Page 10 of 14 // 11 // committee considering the above aspect and the law pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject & recommended premature retirement of the petitioner with the observation that his continuance will not be in public interest. Circular No.27037/Gendated 24/09/2019 prescribing the criteria and guideline for Premature Retirement of Government servants was also kept in mind while recommending compulsory retirement of the petitioner.” 5.2. It is also contended that in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court, Petitioner’s claim was again considered by Opp. Party No. 1 and rejected vide order dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as S.I. of Police, where he joined on 16.08.1985. After such joining in the Department, Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on 28.02.2004, to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 30.12.2011 and to the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police on 31.12.2018. While so continuing, Petitioner’s name was also recommended for awarding President’s Medal in the Republic Day, 2020 vide Annexure-8. Not only that Petitioner’s name was also recommended for granting super time scale Page 11 of 14 // 12 // of pay in the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police vide letter dd.16.11.2021 under Annexure-7. 6.1. However, it is found that because of his implication in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/22 dtd.16.02.2022, his name was recommended to the Review Committee to give premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code. 6.2. Since it is not disputed that by the Petitioner’s name was so recommended he had already attained the age of 58 years, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ratnakar Mallick and Pratap Kumar Samal as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that at that point of time Petitioner’s name could not have been recommended. 6.3. Since the provisions contained in the guideline issued by the G.A. Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-D/4, has not been followed, in view of the decisions of this Court as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that Petitioner’s name could not have been sent to the Review Committee for its consideration in terms of Rule 71(a) of the Code. Not only that there was no public interest involved to give such premature retirement, just after initiation of the vigilance proceeding. Page 12 of 14 // 13 // 6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that not only the recommendation made by the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.19.02.2022 is illegal but also the impugned order of premature retirement issued on 21.02.2022 under Annexure-3 and rejection of the Petitioner’s claim for reinstatement vide order dtd.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.21.02.2022 under Annexure-3 and so also order dt.07.08.2023 under Annexure-6 and quash the same accordingly. 6.5. Since as contended and during pendency of the writ petition Petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2023, his date of birth being 27.10.1963, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to regularize the break period of service by taking the Petitioner to have retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on notional basis. However, provisional pension so sanctioned and released after giving premature retirement vide order dt.21.02.2022 till Petitioner attained the age of superannuation, shall not be recovered. This Court held the Petitioner entitled to get all service and retiral benefits as due and admissible on his retirement with due adjustment of the provisional pension so released. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to pass a fresh order by extending all such Page 13 of 14 // 14 // benefits as directed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.6. However, before parting with this case, it is the view of this Court that instead of taking step to give premature retirement to an employee in terms of the provision contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code, the concerned employee should be dealt with initiation of appropriate proceeding as provided under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. This Court is of such view, as while giving premature retirement to an employee, he is becoming entitled to get all the post retiral benefits including pension in terms of Rule 41 of OCS (Pension) Rules 1992, which is not in the better interest of the Govt. nor it is in public interest. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 4th December, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Dec-2025 19:05:41 Page 14 of 14