JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The petitioner assails the order vide Annexure-6 issued by the opposite parties by retiring him compulsorily from Government service. FACTS: 2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as LDC/Junior Clerk in the Judgeship of Kandhamal-Boudh, Phulbani on 25.11.1981. On 10.10.1997, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and on 02.12.2003, he was promoted to the post of Sheristadar in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Kantamal. The petitioner has rendered service purportedly from 25.11.1981 to 10.05.2010 with all sincerity and integrity. But on 07.08.2010 the Registrar Civil Courts, Phulbani made a communication to the effect that the District Review Committee held on 31.07.2010 observed that the petitioner is warned with an instruction to avoid shirking responsibility in attending the office work and be active in his duty. The petitioner was directed to be kept under observation till the next Review Meeting vide Annexure-1. On that day the petitioner was also issued with another notice about the above observation vide Annexure-2. 3. Be it is stated that on 25.02.2011, the Review Committee Meeting was held again for review of the service of Class-III Government employees who have completed the age of 50 years and above 54 years. In that meeting the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the Government service. Subsequently, the petitioner received the copy of the Character Roll (C.C.R.) for the period from 09.02.2007 to 19.01.2011. The petitioner came to know from the C.C.R. that he was on duty. On the other hand, on 16.07.2009 the then District Judge reported that the performance is satisfactory. The petitioner purportedly remained absent from 06.11.2010 to 12.12.2010 on health ground. 4. Be it is stated that there is no adverse remark against the petitioner or any strong ground to pass the order of premature retirement against the petitioner. On the other hand, the Circular of the G.A. Department on 24.11.1987 containing the provisions of Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter called “the Code”) have been grossly violated by holding the Review Meeting twice in a year. So, the writ petition is filed challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed on 26.02.2011 vide Annexure-6 and to quash the observation of the Review Committee with the consequential relief to reinstate him. SUBMISSIONS 5. Mr. So, the writ petition is filed challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed on 26.02.2011 vide Annexure-6 and to quash the observation of the Review Committee with the consequential relief to reinstate him. SUBMISSIONS 5. Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is gross violation of the provisions of the law by the opposite parties by retiring the petitioner compulsorily from the Government service. The petitioner has not been communicated about the adverse remark except the communication of observation of the District Review Committee. There is no impediment at any time for his promotion to different cadres till 10.05.2010. There is no department enquiry or any proceeding initiated against the petitioner. The communication of the remark of the Review Committee is in utter disregard to the provisions of law because the Review Committee which should be held once in a year as per Rule 71(a) of the Code read with G.A. Department Circular letter dated 24.11.1987, the Review Committee was held on 31.07.2010 leaving the petitioner with warning, and again held on 25.02.2011 when action was taken against the petitioner in retiring him compulsorily from the service at the age of 50 years. So, such proceeding of the meeting is illegal and improper and as such the order of compulsory retirement communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-6 is unsustainable in law. So, he prayed to quash the orders vide Annexures-6 and 7 with consequential relief to reinstate the petitioner w.e.f. 1.03.2011. 6. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that opposite party no.2 has rightly made observation by directing the petitioner to avoid shirking responsibility in attending the official work and to be active in his duty. He rightly kept the petitioner under observation till the next meeting of the Review Committee and subsequently retired him prematurely from service as the petitioner was saddled with incompetency. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the observation of the Review Committee is based on records and that under law un-communicated adverse remark can be taken into consideration while reviewing the service of an employee of his whole career. 8. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the observation of the Review Committee is based on records and that under law un-communicated adverse remark can be taken into consideration while reviewing the service of an employee of his whole career. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that while the petitioner was discharging his duty as Sheristadar in the Court of J.M.F.C., Daringbadi, for reasons best known to him, he remained unauthorizedly absent for a quite good length of period, committed negligence in not preparing the bills in time for which the staff and the officers could not receive the salary for the month of October, 2010 till 30.11.2010. Similarly, while the petitioner was in-charge of the Nizarat in the District Court, Phulbani he has suppressed the records and files for which the Registrar Civil Courts, Phulbani has warned the petitioner to avoid shirking responsibility in attending the office work and advised to be active in the office work. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that being in-charge of the Sheristadar in the Court of Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Daringbadi, he has failed to put up the plaint in C.S. No.2/2010 on the date of filing of the suit and the lawyers have made complaint against him for which he was asked to explain for such negligence in duty. Thus, he submitted that due to such incompetency and negligence in duty, the opposite parties are justified in their action in retiring him compulsorily because it is the settled law that dead wood should be removed after review of their whole service career. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate countering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there were two departmental proceedings against the petitioner. In D.P. No.3/1993 the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect for his gross negligence and dereliction in duty. In D.P. No.1/1997 the petitioner was censured for his gross misconduct and insubordination while working as Junior Clerk in the Court of S.D.J.M., Boudh. Similarly, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of D.P. No.9/2005 and in that proceeding also petitioner was awarded with punishment of stopping of two annual consecutive increments with cumulative effect for his misconduct, unauthorized absence, carelessness, disobedience of order and negligence in duty. So, he submits that it cannot be said that there was no proceeding or adverse remark against him. 11. So, he submits that it cannot be said that there was no proceeding or adverse remark against him. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that under Rule 71(a) of the Code and the G.A. Department Circular letter dated 24.11.1987, the Review Committee is to sit once in a year but there is no bar in sitting for more than once in a year. When the Review Committee, in the instant case was convened once and made their observation communicated to the petitioner and action was taken in the next meeting, there is no violation of any procedural law as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, the opposite parties have taken lawful action against the petitioner by passing the order of compulsory retirement. 12. POINT FOR DETERMINATION (i) The main point for consideration in this case is whether the action of the opposite parties in retiring the petitioner compulsorily from the Government service is legal and proper? DISCUSSION 13. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk and he was promoted from time to time to the higher post and to the post of Sheristadar in the Court of Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Daringbadi. It is not in dispute that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Daringbadi has informed the opposite party no.2 about unauthorized absence of the petitioner resulting non-disbursement of salary of the staff and officers in the office of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Daringbadi. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was served with the notice about the observation of the District Review Committee held on 31.07.2010. 14. Before going to the fact of the case, it is necessary to discuss about the law relating to the compulsory retirement as on date. No doubt, the law on the compulsory retirement of the employees of the State Government is applicable to the employees of judiciary. So, the rules of compulsory retirement as per the Orissa Service Code and the notification issued by the G.A. Department from time to time are relevant to be gone through. No doubt, the law on the compulsory retirement of the employees of the State Government is applicable to the employees of judiciary. So, the rules of compulsory retirement as per the Orissa Service Code and the notification issued by the G.A. Department from time to time are relevant to be gone through. Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code is produced below for reference:- “71.(a) Except as otherwise provided in the other clauses of this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, except a ministerial servant who was in Government service on 31st the March 1939 and Class IV Government servant, is the date on which he or she attains the age of 58 years subject to the condition that a review shall be conducted in respect of the Government servant in the 55th year of age in order to determine whether he/she should be allowed to remain in service up to the date of the completion of the age of 58 years or retired on completing the age of 55 years in public interest : Provided that a Government servant may retire from service any time after completing thirty years’ qualifying service or on attaining the age of fifty years, by giving a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or by giving the said notice to the said authority before such shorter period as Government may allow in any case. It shall be open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who seeks to retire under this rule, if he is under suspension or if enquiries against him are in progress. The appropriate authority may also require any officer to retire in public interest any time after he has completed thirty years’ qualifying service or attained the age of fifty years, by giving a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire or by giving three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice”. 15. Apart from this, Clause-7 of the Circular issued under Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code speaks in the following manner:- “7. 15. Apart from this, Clause-7 of the Circular issued under Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code speaks in the following manner:- “7. It will not be in public interest to retain an employee in service if – (a) he is clearly lacking in integrity, or (b) although his integrity is not in doubt, his physical or mental condition is such as to make him inefficient for further service, or (c) even though his work in a lower grade was satisfactory, he clearly lacks in the standard of efficiency required to discharge the duties of the post he presently holds”. Beside the above rules, the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court are to be kept in view. 16. In the decision reported in Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and others; AIR 1981 SC 70 where Their Lordships while considering the case of compulsory retirement have observed at Para-8 in the following manner: “8.This takes us to the meat of the matter, viz., whether the appellant was retired because and only because it was necessary in the public interest so to do. It is an affirmative action, not a negative disposition, a positive conclusion, not a neutral attitude. It is a terminal step to justify which the onus is on the Administration, not a matter where the victim must make out the contrary. Security of tenure is the condition of efficiency of service. The Administration, to be competent, must have servants who are not plagued by uncertainty about tomorrow. At the age of 50 when you have family responsibility and the sombre problems of one's own life's evening!, your experience, accomplishments and fullness of fitness become an asset to the Administration, if and only if you are not harried or worried by 'what will happen to me and my family?' 'Where will I go if cashiered?' How will I survive when I am too old to be newly employed and too young to be superannuated?' These considerations become all the more important in departments where functional independence, fearless scrutiny, and freedom to expose evil or error in high places is the task. And the Ombudsmanic tasks of the office or audit vested in the C. & AG. And the Ombudsmanic tasks of the office or audit vested in the C. & AG. and the entire army of monitors and minions under him are too strategic for the nation's financial health and discipline that immunity from subtle threats and oblique overawing is very much in public interest. So it is that we must emphatically state that under the guise of 'public interest' if unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for making an order of premature retirement, it will be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonableness, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal. To constitutionalise the rule, we must so read it as to free it from the potential for the mischief’s we have just projected. The exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest. There is no demonstrable ground to infer mala fides here and the only infirmity alleged which deserves serious notice is as to whether the order has been made in public interest. When an order is challenged and its validity depends on its being supported by public interest the State must disclose the material so that the court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any material whatever which, to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law, is sufficient to sustain the grounds of 'public interest' justifying forced retirement of the public servant. Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Administrator but they are not absolved from the minimal review well-settled in administrative law and founded on constitutional obligations. The limitations on judicial power in this area are well-known and we are confined to an examination of the material merely to see whether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest. 17. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer; (1992) 2 SCC 299 , where Their Lordships in para-8 observed as follows: “8. It is evident that the latter half of the proviso which empowers the government to retire a government servant in public interest after he completes 30 years of qualifying service or after attaining the age of 50 years is in pari materia with the Fundamental Rule 56 (j). xxx xxx xxx 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. xxx xxx xxx 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it 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. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter -of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above.” 18. In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa; 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 424 Their Lordships at para-9 observed as follows: “9. ………… The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa; 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 424 Their Lordships at para-9 observed as follows: “9. ………… The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record more particular the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. When an officer reaching the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evaluation of the entire record of service if the government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service”. 19. In Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand; (2010) 10 SCC 693 Their Lordships expounded the theory of compulsory retirement in a very lucid manner. Their Lordships have taken note of most of the decisions including the decision of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) and observed about the washed-off theory. In paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the above judgment Their Lordships observed as follows:- “19. In State of Punjab Vs. Their Lordships have taken note of most of the decisions including the decision of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) and observed about the washed-off theory. In paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the above judgment Their Lordships observed as follows:- “19. In State of Punjab Vs. Dewan Chuni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that adverse entries regarding the dishonesty and inefficiency of the government employee in his ACRs have to be ignored if, subsequent to recording of the same, he had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar, as it would mean that while permitting him to cross the efficiency bar such entries had been considered and were not found of serious nature for the purpose of crossing the efficiency bar. 20. Similarly, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Baidyanath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC 2218 , had taken a similar view on the issue observing that adverse entries awarded to the employee in the remote past lost significance in view of the fact that he had subsequently been promoted to the higher post, for the reason that while considering the case for promotion he had been found to possess eligibility and suitability and if such entry did not reflect deficiency in his work and conduct for the purpose of promotion, it would be difficult to comprehend how such an adverse entry could be pressed into service for retiring him compulsorily. When a government servant is promoted to higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service record lose their significance and remain on record as part of past history. This view has been adopted by this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das, (1992) 2 SCC 299 . 21. However, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Orissa V. Ram Chandra Das; (1996) 5 SCC 331 had taken a different view as it had been held therein that such entries still remain part of the record for overall consideration to retire a government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. Therefore, such entries do not lose significance, even if the employee has subsequently been promoted. The Court held as under:(SCC pp.333-34, para-7) "7. The object always is public interest. Therefore, such entries do not lose significance, even if the employee has subsequently been promoted. The Court held as under:(SCC pp.333-34, para-7) "7. ……..Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension." (emphasis added) This judgment has been approved and followed by this court in State of Gujarat V. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 , emphasising that the "entire record" of the government servant is to be examined.” “22. In Vijay Kumar Jain, (2002) 3 SCC 641 , this Court held that the vigour or sting of an entry does not get wiped out, particularly, while considering the case of employee for giving him compulsory retirement, as it requires the examination of the entire service records, including character rolls and confidential reports. `Vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped out' merely it relates to the remote past. There may be a single adverse entry of integrity which may be sufficient to compulsorily retire the government servant. 24. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to state that in case there is a conflict between two or more judgments of this court, the judgment of the larger Bench is to be followed. More so, the washed off theory does not have universal application. It may have relevance while considering the case of government servant for further promotion but not in a case where the employee is being assessed by the Reviewing Authority to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement, as the Committee is to assess his suitability taking into consideration his "entire service record". 20. 20. The aforesaid decision is well followed in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir; (2013) 10 SCC 551 , where Their Lordships observed at para-24 in the following manner: “24. …….. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the “overall performance” on the basis of “entire service record” to come to the conclusion as to whether the employee concerned has become a deadwood and it is in public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.” 21. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, this Court has also taken similar view by observing that washed-off theory will have no universal application when a person is considered his continuance in service or not in the public interest. In that case the entire service record has to be taken into consideration. Even if the old adverse entry has been ignored while giving promotion, the same can be considered or assessed while the service of a Government servant is reviewed under Rule 71 (a) but due regard must have to be given to all aspects, particularly with respect to integrity, without which allowing a public servant to continue in service is dangerous or menace to the society as well as hurdle for reposing confidence on the organization. It is needless to say that judiciary being the third column of the Constitution is the bedrock of development of the country and it should command tremendous faith of people at large at any cost. Integrity and competency are both sides of a coin that every judicial employee has to possess in order to continuance in service. At no stretch of imagination integrity or competency of a judicial employee can be compromised at any event. So, whole career of the employee has to be considered by the Review Committee. 22. In the instant case, the service record of the petitioner and ACR entries reveal as follows:- Year Post held Remarks by immediate superior (gazette) officer Remarks by superior officer Date of communication of adverse remarks, if any. From 25.11.81 upto 5.10.83 Nazir Hard working, sincere knowledge in GRCO Civil and Criminal needs improvement. October 1983 to June 1985 Nazir and then Asst. Nazir-cum-Clerk in charge of general files (criminal) Manageable but he should improve sincerity. I do not agree with the remark. “He is most inefficient. He has no mind to work. He is inhabit of avoiding the work. He should try to improve.” Communicate the adverse remark to person concerned. 1986-87 Assisting Accountant He is improving 1988 Assisting the Accountant He is a sincere and good worker. Yes. I agree 1989 Assisting the Accountant Same as above. Yes. I agree 1989-90 Accountant o/o J.M.F.C., G. Udaygiri A good worker and always well behaved. 1990-1991 1991-1992 Accountant and dealing with G.R. files of the general side. Good Accountant. So far other aspects are concerned, he is average I agree 1992-93 Junior Clerk in charge of records in 2(a) C.C. and 2(b) C.C. and 3(a) C.C. cases of the general side and acting as Accountant Satisfactory I agree 1993-94 Accountant and dealing with 2(a)C.C., 2(b) C.C. cases Satisfactory I agree 10.10.97 to 11.6.99 Sr. Clerk working as Bench Clerk to the S.D.J.M., Balliguda Satisfactory From 8th December 2000 till 15th May, 2003 Sr. Clerk acting as Head Clerk Sincere, honest and hard working, capable in managing different seats. 17.4.04 to 30.6.04 Sr. Clerk-cum- Bench Clerk (CJ) Sr. Division, Balligulda His behavior is good. His overall performance is good. 02.12.2003 to 13.6.2005 Sr. Clerk Slowly works in every seat. Not punctual keeps work pending. 24.9.06-29.1.07 Nazir at District Office, Phbulbani He is obedient, and faithful. He should be sincere in his duty. 17.4.04 to 30.6.04 Sr. Clerk-cum- Bench Clerk (CJ) Sr. Division, Balligulda His behavior is good. His overall performance is good. 02.12.2003 to 13.6.2005 Sr. Clerk Slowly works in every seat. Not punctual keeps work pending. 24.9.06-29.1.07 Nazir at District Office, Phbulbani He is obedient, and faithful. He should be sincere in his duty. His service is satisfactory. 09.02.02 till 21.1.2008 Nazir, District Court He is good but to take better responsibility. nothing is heard against his integrity. I agree. 22.5.2008 to 12.06.09 Nazir He is a good man but slow in action. Nothing is heard against his integrity. Performance is satisfactory but slow hand. 22.06.09 to 10.5.10 Nazir He is good. But reluctant to take any responsibility. Nothing is heard against his integrity. 2010-11 Sheristadar from 16.08.2010 to 19.01.2010 Habitual unauthorized absentee. Fails to submit explanation when cal for. Very slow, callous and lethargic in work. Avoids responsibility. Performance is not satisfactory. Accepted. Put up with all necessary references in the review meeting scheduled to be held on 25.02.2011 for consideration as already ordered in the file today. From the aforesaid A.C.R., it appears that from 2003 onwards the petitioner has become insincere and lacked zeal to take up more responsibility and the same continued till 2010. 23. The service book of the petitioner shows that two increments without cumulative effect were stopped during the year 1994-1995 as ordered in D.P. No.3/1995. It is revealed from the service book that in D.P. No.9/2005 two annual consecutive increments were stopped with cumulative effect and his period of unauthorized absence for the period from 09.04.2005 to 22.05.2005 was treated as leave without pay and also the period of suspension was treated as such. The aforesaid records with C.C.R. do not give a rosy picture of his service career. On the other hand, the petitioner is found to have suppressed material facts with regard to the departmental proceeding disposed of against him with award of punishment. He, who seeks equity must come with clean hand. So, the conduct of the petitioner in this case also is not clean enough to take a positive view. The observation of the Review Committee in the first meeting held on 31.07.2010 as reflected in Annexure-2 shows that the petitioner was warned with an instruction to avoid shirking responsibility in attending the office work and to be active in his duty. The observation of the Review Committee in the first meeting held on 31.07.2010 as reflected in Annexure-2 shows that the petitioner was warned with an instruction to avoid shirking responsibility in attending the office work and to be active in his duty. On that day, the committee has kept the petitioner under observation with above warning till the next Review Meeting. It reveals from the Annexure-2 that while such notice was served on him, he being in-charge of the Nizarat suppressed such letter for which he was also served with a notice. However, Annexure-3 shows that the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Daringbadi has informed the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner has remained unauthorized absent from duty since 6.11.2010 and did not receive the recall notice for which the petitioner was issued with notice for his misconduct, disobedience of order, willful unauthorized absence and negligence in duty. 24. Annexure-7 shows that in the Review Committee Meeting dated 25.02.2011 the then District Judge, Phulbani has noted the reasons for taking decision in the following manner:- “COPY OF PROCEEDING OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 25.02.2011 FOR THE JUDGESHIP OF KANDHAMALBOUDH, IN RESPECT OF CLASS-III GOVT. EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE COMPLETED THE AGE ABOVE 50 YEARS & ABOVE 54 YEARS” As per the provision of Rule-71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and in terms of instructions contained in Hon’ble Court’s letter No.6913 dated 14.10.1976 read with General Administration Department Letter No.30495 dtd.24.11.1987, the Review Committee Meeting is held to-day i.e. on 25th February, 2011 in the Chamber of the District Judge, Kandhamal-Boudh, Phulbani with the following Members. 1. Shri Prakash Chandra Mishra, District Judge, Kandhamal-Boudh, Phulbani. 2. Shri Dukhishyam Chaulia, District Judge, Puri. The cases of the following employees who have attained the age of 50 years and 54 years above are put up before the Committee for consideration. I.FIRST REVIEW AT THE AGE ABOVE 50 YEARS:- Xx xxxxxx 2. Sri Sanatan Sahu, Sheristadar, J.M.F.C. Court, Daringbadi. Xx xxxxxx Sri Sanatan Sahu, Sheristadar, J.M.F.C. Court, Daringhbadi Sri Sanatan Sahu is working as Sheristadar in the J.M.F.C. Court, Daringbadi since 16.08.2010. He was warned by the previous Review Committee held on 31.07.2010 to avoid shirking responsibility in attending the office work and be active in duty and was kept under observation till the next Review Meeting. It was communicated to him vide District Office Letter No.4901 dtd.7.8.2010. He was warned by the previous Review Committee held on 31.07.2010 to avoid shirking responsibility in attending the office work and be active in duty and was kept under observation till the next Review Meeting. It was communicated to him vide District Office Letter No.4901 dtd.7.8.2010. But no improvement is found with him in shouldering responsibility and attending the office work. He continued his practice of remaining frequent unauthorized absent from duty. His performance during the period of last 6 months is found not satisfactory. For his latches, the Presiding Officer and Staffs are not able to get their salary in time. Also he failed to put up the Plaint in C.S.2/2010 before the Civil Judge (JD), Daringbadi on the date of filing i.e.27.10.2010 and supplied the date of posting to the Lawyers as 11.11.2010 for checking and remained on leave without placing the same before the Civil Judge (JD), Daringbadi, for which the administration received allegation from the concerned lawyer and on being asked to explain, Sri Sahu did not submit his explanation which shows his insubordination and negligence in duty. Further, Sri Sahu after receiving the letter of observation of previous Review Committee as mentioned in the above para suppressed the said letter and caused disappearance of the same from the official records knowing fully well about the contents of the same that it goes against him. From the above, it is clear that Sri Sahu does not want to accept the grace awarded by the previous Review Committee and as such he became an undeserving Government Servant and his continuance in this Department will be detrimental to the public interest. If he will be allowed to continue it may encourage others to follow his foot prints. So, this being the most disciplined department, people having indiscipline career should not be allowed to continue for the larger interest of the public. So, in the interest of administration the services of Sri Sahu should be dispensed with. Hence, the Committee arrives at the conclusion that Sri Sanatan Sahu be retired compulsorily. So, this being the most disciplined department, people having indiscipline career should not be allowed to continue for the larger interest of the public. So, in the interest of administration the services of Sri Sahu should be dispensed with. Hence, the Committee arrives at the conclusion that Sri Sanatan Sahu be retired compulsorily. Xx xx xx xx Sd/-D. Chaulia, Sd/-P.C. Mishra, 25.2.2011 25.2.2011 District Judge, Puri District Judge, Kandhamal-Boudh, Phulbani” From the aforesaid material, it appears that not only there is departmental proceedings where the petitioner has been awarded with punishments but also he has been kept under observation in the first Review Meeting where no action was taken but due to the complaint again about his insincerity, reluctance to work or shouldering the responsibility which speaks on his incompetency during interregnum a final view was taken in Review Committee Meeting held on 25.02.2011. 25. It is reiterated that under the Rule 71(a) of Code read with clause 7 of the G.A. Department Circular, the Review Committee Meeting should be held once in a year where service of employees attaining the age of 50 years, 55 years and 58 years to be reviewed but there is no bar to hold the Review Committee Meeting for the second occasion to consider the continuance of the petitioner in job beyond 50 years. In the instant case, the first Review Committee Meeting has not allowed the petitioner to cross the age of 50 years but specifically directed for keeping him under observation for which it cannot be said that the petitioner had to face second review meeting. It cannot be said that first review meeting was final one for the petitioner but actually the second review meeting decided the fate of the petitioner. In this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner falls flat. 26. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited above in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another-v-Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (supra), the Review Committee has reviewed the entire service career of the petitioner as per the observation made above and has taken a view to retire him while he was at the age of 50 years because the Review Committee Meeting of the petitioner was not over on 07.08.2010 but was only deferred till 25.02.2011. So the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision taken by the Review Committee on 25.02.2011 is a smack of justice is untenable. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1109; State of Gujurat Versus Umedbhai M. Patel where Their Lordships observed that the order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. In the instant case, the observation of the Review Committee that there was no improvement of the petitioner after last Review Committee Meeting because of the allegation received from the Court of J.M.F.C., Daringbadi which could have been enquired through a departmental enquiry, cannot be a ground to take a positive view. It appears that the Review Committee has not only taken the allegation of the Court of J.M.F.C., Daringbadi into consideration but also has considered the observation of the previous Review Committee and the entire service records. However, on perusal of the entire service record along with present allegations of his insubordination, negligence in duty and unauthorized absence and the observation of the Review Committee, in the fact and circumstances of the present case the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujurat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel (supra) is not applicable. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold good in defence of the petitioner. He has cited also decisions reported in AIR 1967 SC 1910 ; Sant Ram Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 2004 SC 3291 ; DDA and others Versus Jogindar S. Monga and others, (2009) 15 SCC 221 ; Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Diary Federation Limited and another Versus Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, and 2014(II) OLR-381;Epari Vasudeva Rao Versus State of Odisha and another but they are not required to be discussed in detail as the ratio of those cases have been rendered in the facts and circumstances of those cases and the present case is different from the facts of those decisions. 28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the decision of the Review Committee basing on the allegation and other adverse remarks in the C.C.R. and other materials on record is justifiable. Issue No.I is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 29. 28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the decision of the Review Committee basing on the allegation and other adverse remarks in the C.C.R. and other materials on record is justifiable. Issue No.I is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 29. In the writ petition, it has been prayed to quash Annexures-6 and 7 with consequential prayer to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect. It has been already observed that the action of the opposite party no.2 in retiring the petitioner compulsorily by passing Annexure-6 is legal and proper. Annexure-7 is only compliance of the Rule 71(a) of the Odisha Service Code since three months salary have been awarded by Annexure-7 in compliance to Rule 71(a) of the Odisha Service Code. On the other hand, Annexures-6 and 7 cannot be said to be illegal and improper. Therefore, there is no other way than to hold the orders passed vide Annexures-6 and 7 to be correct, valid and proper. The Court, therefore do not want to interfere with the same. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. B.K. Nayak, J. : I agree.