By order of the Governor.
It was submitted that besides the remarks made in the companyfidential character rolls, other material was also taken into companysideration by the Review Committee and that it arrived at its decision bonafide and in public interest which decision was accepted and approved by the government.
The High Court took into account the companyfidential reports relating to the period prior to 1966 which were also number companymunicated to the companycerned officer.
He submitted that his entire service has been spot less and that at numbertime were any adverse entries in his companyfidential character rolls companymunicated to him.
The appellant, Sri Baikuntha Nath Das was appointed as a Pharmacist then designated as Compounder by the Civil Surgeon, Mayurbhanj on 15.3.1951.
870 of 1987 K. Garg and A.K. Panda for the Appellants.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the government, it was submitted that the decision to retire the petitioner companypulsorily was taken by the Review Committee and number by the Chief Medical Officer.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.1981 of the Orissa High Court in Original Judicature Case No.
The appellant was overlooked both in the year 1964 as well as in 1965 by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the P.S.C. On August 15, 1967, on his companypleting 55 years of age, he was companypulsorily retired under F.R. 56 j .
The petitioner was transferred by the said officer from place to place and was also placed under suspension at one stage.
In this case, the Review Committee took into account the entire service record of the employee including the adverse remarks relating to the year 1969 to 1982 barring certain intervening years for which numberadverse remarks were made .
The petitioner challenged the same in the High Court of Orissa by way of a writ petition, being O.J.C.No.
He made a representation asking for specific instances on the basis of which the said adverse remarks were made.
He was companypulsorily retired by an order dated 10.11.1983.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The order in question was passed by the State Government and number by the Chief Medical Officer.
These representations were rejected.
WITH CA No.
This view was reiterated by K.N. Singh, J. again in 1989 4 S.C.C. 664 Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, Bench companyprising of K.N. Singh and M.H. Kania, JJ.
The appellants in both the appeals have been companypulsorily retired by the government of Orissa in exercise of the power companyferred upon it by the first proviso to Rule 71 a of the Orissa Service Code.
412 of 1976.
They were companymunicated to him.
412 of 1976.
Thereupon he filed three writ petitions in the High Court challenging the said adverse entries as also the order of companypulsory retirement.
The allegation of malafides was denied.
The employee had joined the Orissa Government service as an Assistant Engineer in 1955.
869 of 1987.
While the appellants government servants, companypulsory retired rely upon the decisions of this companyrt in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra, 1987 2 S.C.C. 1988 and Baidyanath Mahapatra, 1989 4 S.C.C. 664, in support of their companytention that it is number permissible, the respondent government relies upon the decision in M.E. Reddy.
By an order dated 13.2.1976 the government of Orissa retired him companypulsorily under the first proviso to sub rule of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code.
The order reads as follows In exercise of the powers companyferred under the first proviso to sub rule a of rule 71 of Orissa Service Code, the Government of Orissa is pleased to order the retirement of Sri Baikunthanath Das, Pharmacist number working under the Chief District Medical Officer, Mayurbhanj on the expiry of three months from the date of service of this order on him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY,J. 1.
S. Srinivasa Rao for the Respondent.
His case was that the order was based on numbermaterial and that it was the result of ill will and malice the Chief District Medical Officer bore towards him.
