Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 311 (ORI)

BANSHIDHAR DASH v. STATE OF ORISSA

2002-05-16

A.K.PATNAIK, P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
JUDGMENT : A.K. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Lodging-house Fund, Puri with effect from 5.4.1955. He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk in the said establishment on 30.6.1981. Although he was due to retire on superannuation at the age of 58 years, he has been compulsorily retired at the age of 55 years by Office Order dated 24.8.1992 of the District Magistrate and President. Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri in pursuance of Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the said order of compulsory retirement and for directing the opposite parties to continue him in service till he attained the age of superannuation and for all consequential service benefits. 2. Mr. T.K. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed on the recommendations of the Review Committee, but the Review Committee has not been constituted m accordance with the instructions of the State Government dated 24.11.1987. Clause 6 of Annexure-1A of the said instructions dated 24.11.1987 of the State Government, on which Mr. Patnaik relied on, describes the composition of the Review Committee in case off Class III employees in a district or subordinate office in respect of whom the Head of the District Off ice is the appointing authority. Clause 6 of Annexure-1A of the instructions of the State Government dated 24.11.1987 is quoted herein below: 6. Class-III employee Head of the District Office (Chairman), & two in any district or subordinate other officer nominated by the Headed Department office in respect of whom (Members)(For employees working in the office the Head of the District of the Collector or in any office subordinate Office is the Appointment to the Collector, the nomination shall be made Authority by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner). Mr. Patnaik argued that as per the aforesaid Clause 6 of Annexure-1A of the instructions, the Review Committee is to comprise of Head of the District Office who is to act as the Chairman and two other officers nominated by the Head of the Department. According to Mr. Mr. Patnaik argued that as per the aforesaid Clause 6 of Annexure-1A of the instructions, the Review Committee is to comprise of Head of the District Office who is to act as the Chairman and two other officers nominated by the Head of the Department. According to Mr. Patnaik the Head of the Department for Lodging-house Fund, Puri is the Member, Board of Revenue because u/s 21 of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 (in short, 'the Act") under which the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri has been constituted, it is the Member. Board of Revenue who has the control over the Lodging house Fund, Puri. In support of this contention, he relied on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 as well as the communication dated 26.10.1997 of the Director, Municipal Administration, Orissa, to the Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, Orissa, annexed there to Mr. Patnaik argued that the Review Committee for the Head Clerk, who is a Class III employee in the Lodging-house Fund,Puri as per Clause 6 of Annexure 1-A of the instructions dated 24.11.1987 of the State Government, should comprise of the District Magistrate who is the Chairman of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri and two other officers, nominated by the Member, Board of Revenue. But, in this case while the District Magistrate. Puri acted as the Chairman of the Review Committee, there was no officer nominated by the Member. Board of Revenue in the Review Committee and instead, officers nominated by the District Magistrate and Chairman of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri were members of the Review Committee. 3. In reply, Mr. G.A.R. Dora appearing for opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, submitted that u/s 20 of the Act the State Government has appointed, the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri with the District Magistrate, Puri as its ex officio President. The District Magistrate. Puri acting as such ex officio President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri has appointed the Petitioner as a Clerk in the said establishment and also has promoted him of the post of Head-Clerk in the Mid establishment. Mr. Dora argued that the District Magistrate, Puri as the ex officio President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri is thus the appointing authority of the Petitioner and the Petitioner has been working under him. The District Magistrate. Mr. Dora argued that the District Magistrate, Puri as the ex officio President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri is thus the appointing authority of the Petitioner and the Petitioner has been working under him. The District Magistrate. Puri and not the Member, Board of Revenue is, therefore, the Head of the Department in respect of the establishment in which the Petitioner was working. Regarding the communication dated 26.10.1997 of the Director, Municipal Administration, Orissa, to the Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2, Mr. Dora submitted that the said communication itself says that the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, is the appellate authority against the orders of the President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri in respect of disciplinary and service matters of the employees of the Lodging-house Fund, Puri and does not say that the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, is the Head of the Department in respect of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri. Mr. Dora pointed out that the Review Committee which reviewed the performance of the Petitioner, comprised of the District Magistrate, Puri who is the ex officio Presdient of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri and officers nominated by the District Magistrate and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee Puri. Thus, the Review Committee, according to Mr. Dora, had been constituted in accordance with Clause 6 of Annexure 1-A of the instructions of the State Government dated 24.11.1987. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 and Section 21 of the Act which are relevant for deciding the contentions raised by Mr. Patnaik and Mr. Dora are quoted below: 20. (1) xx xx xx (2) The Provincial Government may appoint any person or a committee to administer, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Lodging-house Fund constituted for any area: Provided that in any area where the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, is in force, the fund shall be administered by a Committee, at least one-third of whose number shall be elected by the Commissioners of the Municipality for that area and the remainder shall be elected or nominated in such manner as the Provincial Government may prescribe. 21. 21. The Lodging-house Fund shall be applied as the Commissioner may direct: (a) to the payment of the salaries of Medical Officers of Health appointed and of establishment entertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 12, and of pensions and gratuities, and of contributions to the provident or annuity fund; (b) to the provision of medical relief in the area for which the fund is constituted, and to the sanitary improvement and conservancy of the said area and of any place, building or road which is or may be regulated by rules made under this Act. A reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act makes it clear that the Provincial Government has been vested with power to appoint any person or a committee to administer, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Lodging-house Fund constituted for any area. In exercise of this power under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the State Government of Orissa by notification dated the 7th August, 1992, copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1, has appointed the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri consisting of the official and non-official members named in the said notification with the District Magistrate, Puri as its ex officio President. Thus, it is this Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri which has been vested with the power to "administer" the Lodging-house Fund constituted for Puri and the District Magistrate, Puri is the ex officio President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri so vested with the power to "administer" the Lodging-house Fund, Puri. Since Head of the Department connotes the administrative head of a Department, the District-Magistrate. Puri who is the ex officio President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee. Puri, can be hold to be the Head of the Department in respect of the Lodging-house Fund, Puri. 5. Section 21 of the Act, on the other hand, vests power on the Commissioner to issue some directions with Regard to the application of the Lodging-house Fund to certain matters indicated there in but it does not vest on the Commissioner the power to administer the Lodging-house Fund. The Member Board of Revenue, Orissa, who acts as the Commissioner u/s 21 of the Act thus is not vested with the power to administer the Lodging-house Fund, Puri but has only powers to issue some directions with regard to application of the Lodging-house Fund, Puri. The Member Board of Revenue, Orissa, who acts as the Commissioner u/s 21 of the Act thus is not vested with the power to administer the Lodging-house Fund, Puri but has only powers to issue some directions with regard to application of the Lodging-house Fund, Puri. The Member Board of Revenue Orissa cannot therefore, be held to be the Head of the Department in respect of the Lodging House Fund, Puri. In the communication dated 26.10 1997 of the Director, Municipal Administration, Orissa, to the Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue Orissa, is the Head of the Department or the Administrative Head of the Lodging-house Fund. Puri, All that has been mentioned in the said communication is that the Member. Board of Revenue' Orissa is the appellate authority against the orders of the President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee in respect of disciplinary and service matters of the employees of the Lodging-house Fu.-d Committee. Puri. 6. The aforesaid analysis would show that it is the District Magistrate, Puri acting as the President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, who is the Head of the Department in respect of the Lodging-house Fund, Puri and since besides him three other officers nominated, by him constituted the Review Committee for reviewing the case of the Petitioner, the Review Committee was constituted in accordance with Clause 6 of Annexure 1-A of the instructions of the State Government dated 24.11.1987. Moreover, it is not disputed that the District Magistrate, Puri as the ex-officio President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee. Puri appointed the Petitioner as Clerk and thereafter promoted him to the post of Head Clerk and is also the disciplinary authority of the Petitioner. We fail to appreciate as to why the District Magistrate. Puri, who is the appointing and disciplinary authority of the Petitioner, cannot be the Head of the, Department for the purpose of nominating officers in the Preview Committee for-compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. 7. It was next submitted by Mr. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner in respect of some charges by order dated 20.6.1992 of the District Magistrate and President of Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri, copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-A/3 and for inquiring into the charges in the said disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner. Shri R.N. Mishra, Establishment Officer, Puri Collectorate was appointed as the Inquiring Officer and Shri Banshidhar Mohapatra. Magistrate-in-charge, Lodging-house Fund, Puri, was appointed as Marshalling Officer for the inquiry. Mr. Patnaik submitted that these two officers, namely Shri R.N. Mishra and Sri Banshidhar Mohapatra were nominated as members of the Review Committee by the District Magistrate and President, Lodging-house Fund Committee. Pun and the recommendations of the Review Committee for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner for this reason were vitiated by bias and the impugned order of compulsory retirement based on such recommendations is liable to be quashed. 8. Mr. Dora, learned Counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4, on the other hand, submitted that though disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner by order dated 20.6.1992 by the District Magistrate and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri and Shri R.N. Mishra and Shri Banshidhar Mohapatra were appointed as the Inquiring Officer and the Marshalling Officer respectively, the inquiry was not actually held. Mr. Dora argued that the contention of Mr. Patnaik that the recommendations of the Review Committee were vitiated by bias for the reason that Shri R.N. Mishra and Shri Banshidhar Mohapatra participated as the members of the Review Committee, is, therefore, misconceived. 9. We find a lot of force in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Dora. As it appears; Shri R.N. Mishra, though appointed as an Inquiring Officer to enquire into the charges against the Petitioner framed against him by orders dated 20.6.1992 of the District Magistrate and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri, has not submitted any inquiry report finding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Similarly, though Shri Banshidhar Mohapatra was appointed Marshalling Officer to present the evidence against the Petitioner in the said inquiry, there is no material placed before the. Court to show that Shri Mohapatra with over-enthusiasm presented the evidence against the Petitioner in the inquiry. The participation of Shri Mishra and Shri Mohapatra in the Review Committee cannot, therefore, he held to have vitiated the recommendation of the Review Committee on the ground of bias. 10 Mr. Court to show that Shri Mohapatra with over-enthusiasm presented the evidence against the Petitioner in the inquiry. The participation of Shri Mishra and Shri Mohapatra in the Review Committee cannot, therefore, he held to have vitiated the recommendation of the Review Committee on the ground of bias. 10 Mr. Patnaik then argued that although disciplinary proceedings were vitiated against the Petitioner and charges were framed by order dated 20.6.1992 of the-District Magistrate and the President, Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri and the Petitioner was placed under suspension pending such disciplinary proceedings, by order dated 22.8.1992, copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annaxure-4, the Petitioner was reinstated in service pending f finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings and. immediately thereafter he was compulsorily retired by the impugned order dated 24.8.1992. Mr. Patnaik argued that the Petitioner has been compulsorily retired by the impugned order dated 24.8.1992 without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to defend himself against the charges framed by the order dated 20.6.1992 of the District Magistrate and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee Puri. 11. Mr. Dora, on the other hand, contended that the proceeding of the Review Committee held on 4.8.1992, copy of which has been annexed to the counter affidavit of opposite parties 3 and 4, would show that the Petitioner has not been compulsorily retired for the charges of misconduct framed in the order dated 20.6.1992 of the District Magistrate and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee. Puri, but on the assessment of the Confidential Character Rolls of the Petitioner for the last five years of his service in accordance with the instructions in the G.A. Department Circular No. 30495 dated 24.11.1987. Mr. Dora cited the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Basistha Narain Chaudhary v. Commissioner of income tax Bihar and Orissa and Ors. 1968 S.L.R. 422, in which it has been held that there is no legal bar to the appointing authority at first deciding to proceed by way of disciplinary action against a public servant but subsequently deciding to retire him in accordance with rules. He also relied on the decision of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in The State of U.P. and Ors. He also relied on the decision of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in The State of U.P. and Ors. v. Man Bahal Lal Srivastava 1975 (2) S.L.R. 161, wherein it has been held that an order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56-A, when a departmental inquiry was pending against the Government servant, does not amount to an order by way of punishment. 12. If an order of compulsory retirement is based on misconduct of an employee, obviously it has to be quashed if the employee has not been given an opportunity to defend himself against the charges of misconduct levelled against him. But, if the order of compulsory retirement is not based on misconduct but is based on the assessment of his service records and in particular, the service records of the last five years of his service, the service records of the last five years of his service, such an order of compulsory retirement cannot be quashed on the ground that it has bean passed during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding against the employee's for some misconduct without giving him reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges of misconduct. In the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and another. the Supreme Court has held that even though the order of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous language without making any imputations against the Government servant who was directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the Court in appropriate cases can list the veil to find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the Government servant or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purpose. 13. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, we may now examine the facts of the present case. It is no doubt true that by the order dated 20.6.1992, the District Magistrate and President of Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri, framed charges against the Petitioner for some irregularities committed by him as mentioned in the said order and an Inquiring Officer and a Marshalling Officer were appointed by the order dated 28.7.1992 of the District Magistrate and President, Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri for the said inquiry against the Petitioner. But, it appears that since the Petitioner had completed 55 years of his age, his case for premature retirement review was taken up by a Review Committee constituted for non-gazetted Class III employees of Lodging-house Fund Office. Puri for the year 1992, in its-meeting held on 4.8.1992 and in the said meeting, the Confidential Character Rolls of the Petitioner for the years 1986-87,1987-88,1988-89, part of 1989-90 and 1999-91 were considered and after such consideration, the Review Committee arrived at the decision that the Petitioner should be prematurely retired from service in accordance with the instructions contained in the G.A. Department Circular No. 30495 dated 24.11.1987 and on the basis of the said recommendations of the Review Committee, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed by the District Magistrate and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Purl on 24.8.1992 in pursuance of Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code. Neither in the proceedings of the Review Committee annexed to the counter affidavit of opposite parties 3 and 4 as Annexure-3/4 nor in the order of compulsory retirement annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-5, there is any reference to the charges of misconduct against the Petitioner framed in the order dated 20.6.1992 of the District Magistrate and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Purl for which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. On the other hand, the proceedings of the Review Committee in Annexure-B/4 to counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4 refer only to the entries of the Confidential Character Rolls of the Petitioner for the years 1986-87 to 1990-91 and the performance of the Petitioner during the said years as reflected in the said entries. Thus, on the facts of the present case, it is difficult for the Court to hold that the charges of misconduct framed against the Petitioner in the order dated 20.6.1992 of the District Magistrate and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee, Puri, were the basis for the impugned order of compulsory retirement passed against the Petitioner. We cannot, therefore, quash the impugned order of retirement on the ground that it has been passed without giving opportunity to the Petitioner to defend against the charges of misconduct framed against him in the order dated 20.6.1992 of the District Magistrate-and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee Puri. 14. Finally, Mr. Patnaik argued that the C.C.Rs. We cannot, therefore, quash the impugned order of retirement on the ground that it has been passed without giving opportunity to the Petitioner to defend against the charges of misconduct framed against him in the order dated 20.6.1992 of the District Magistrate-and President of the Lodging-house Fund Committee Puri. 14. Finally, Mr. Patnaik argued that the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for five years were not considered as per the instructions cf the Government dated 24.11.1987 by the Review Committee. He submitted that the adverse entries in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner which were taken into consideration by the Review Committee were not counter-signed by the accepting authority contrary to the provisions in Bock Circular No. 46 of the Government relating to the procedure for recording and maintenance of C.C.Rs. of non-gazetted employees. He further argued that the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner which were favourable have not been considered by the Reviewed Committee whereas only the adverse entries of the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner were considered by the Review Committee. Mr. Patnaik submitted that the C.C.Rs. were all written on one date, i.e. 31st of March, 1992, only for the purpose of creating material for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. 15. In reply, Mr. Dora submitted that it is not correct that five years C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner were not considered by the Review Committee: The proceedings of the Review Committee annexed to the counter-affidavit filed by opposite parties 3 and 4 would show that the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the years 1986-87. 1937-83, 1988-89,1989-90 and 1990-91 were considered by the Review Committee. He submitted that the Review Committee not only considered the adverse entries in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 part of 1989-90 and 1990-91 after the same were communicated to the Petitioner and the representation of the Petitioner against them was rejected by the accepting authority, but also considered the favourable entry in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for part of the year 1989-90 (1.4.1989 to 17.10.1989). He submitted that the contention of Mr. Patnaik that the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner were all written on one date, i.e. 31st of March, 1992, is not factually correct. of the Petitioner for part of the year 1989-90 (1.4.1989 to 17.10.1989). He submitted that the contention of Mr. Patnaik that the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner were all written on one date, i.e. 31st of March, 1992, is not factually correct. He cited a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Prasad Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa and Ors., 51 (1981) C.L.T. 231, wherein the Court has held that Book Circulars-lay down merely administrative-guidelines, and entries in the C.C.Rs. cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the procedure laid down in such Book Circulars has not been followed. Mr. Dora also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy for the proposition that an order of compulsory retirement is within the power of the Government and the Court will not interfere with the exercise of that power if such exercise has been made bona fide and on the basis of the material available on the record. 16. We have perused the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the years 1986-87 to 1990-91 as well as the proceedings of the Review Committee in Annexure-B/4 annexed to the counter-affidavit of opposite parties 3 and 4 and we find that the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the years 1986-87, 1987-88'and 1988-89 were written by Shri B. Rath, Magistrate-in-charge, Lodging-house Fund, Puri and against the column relating to integrity of the Petitioner, Shri Rath has made the entry in the C.C.Rs. for all three years "doubtful". Mr. Rath has also made other adverse entries against the column - General Remarks in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the said three years. Mr. Rath worked as Magistrate-in-charge. Lodging-house Fund Puri upto 28.2.1939 as it appears from the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the year 1988-89. Hence, he could not have made the said adverse entries in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner on the 31st of March, 1992 as alleged by Mr. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We further find that in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the periods 18.10.1989 to 31.10. 1990 and 1.4.1990 to 5.12.1990. the President, Puri Lodging-house Fund Committee, has himself made some adverse entries against the column - General Remarks and in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the period 1991-92, the Magistrate-in-charge. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We further find that in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the periods 18.10.1989 to 31.10. 1990 and 1.4.1990 to 5.12.1990. the President, Puri Lodging-house Fund Committee, has himself made some adverse entries against the column - General Remarks and in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the period 1991-92, the Magistrate-in-charge. Lodging-house Fund, Puri has made adverse entries against the column - General Remarks and the President, Puri Lodging - house Fund Committee has agreed with the said adverse' remarks made by the Magistrate-in-charge, Lodging-house Fund Puri. Thus, it is not as if only one officer had made adverse entries in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner during the five years under consideration by the Review Committee and it appears that two Magistrates-in-charge, Lodging-house Fund, Puri and one District Magistrate and President of the Puri Lodging-house Fund Committee, had made the adverse entries in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner and the representations made by the Petitioner against the adverse remarks have been rejected. In the C.C.Rs. for the period 1.4.1989 to 17.10.1989, however, the Petitioner's general' performance was indicated to be "outstanding". The Review Committee has considered the performance of the Petitioner as recorded in his C.C.Rs. for ail the periods from 1986-87 to 1990-91 and has come to the following conclusion: ... On perusal of the remarks contained in the C.C.Rs. it is revealed that, continuously for the past 5 years, Sri Banshidhar Das, Head Clerk miserably lacks the standard of efficiency required to discharge the duties of the post he presently holds and his integrity was held doubtful. In view of the above, after careful consideration the Committee arrived at the decision that, Sri Das should be prematurely retired from Service arid necessary notice in the prescribed form be issued to him in this regard, as provided under para 15 of the instructions issued by the General Administration Department. The aforesaid conclusion of the Review Committee is thus based on relevant materials and cannot be said to be one which is not bona fide. 17. The aforesaid conclusion of the Review Committee is thus based on relevant materials and cannot be said to be one which is not bona fide. 17. Once the Court finds that the conclusion of the Review Committee and the order of the compulsory retirement are based on relevant materials and are bona fide, the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot interfere with the order of compulsory retirement, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the Posts and Telegraphs Board and Anr. vs. C.S.N. Murty (supra). In the officiated case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and Anr. AIR 1092 SC 1020, the Supreme Court held that the High Court or the Supreme Court would not examine an order of compulsory retirement as an appellate Court and they may interfere if they are satisfied (a) that the order is mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. In the instant case, none of the grounds for interference, as indicated in the said case of Baikuntha Nath Das, has been made out calling for an interference by the Court in the impugned order of compulsory retirement. We cannot make an appraisal of the materials in the C.C.Rs. of the Petitioner for the five years as an appellate authority and come to a different conclusion about the performance of the Petitioner and interfere with the impugned order of premature retirement. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the parties shall bear their, own costs. P.K. Tripathy, J. 19. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed