JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. Prayers: These two writ petitions have been filed with the following OJC No.11033 of 1996 "It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to issue writ/writs/order/orders/ direction/directions/declarations under article 226 of the Constitution and more particularly may issue; (i) writ of certiorari calling upon the opp. parties to produce the relevant record along with return, (ii) writ of certiorari declaring the Departmental proceeding along with the charge, inquiry report and impugned order of removal as bad, illegal and unconstitutional; (iii) writ of certiorari declaring the Departmental proceeding No.4 of 1992 as illegal and unconstitutional being violative of the principles of Natural Justice and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as well as Rule 15 of C.C.A. Rule; (iv) writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order of removal as illegal and unconstitutional; (v) writ of mandamus directing the opp. parties to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service benefits; (vi) Order allowing all or any other relief/relief’s as would be available to the petitioner under law; (vii) Order allowing the application with costs; And pass such other order/orders as deemed fit and proper; And For the act of kindness and grace the petitioner shall as in duty bound every pray." OJC No.11034 of 1996 "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue writ/writs/direction/directions/ order/orders/declarations and more specifically may issue; (i) writ of certiorari calling upon the opp.parties to produce the relevant record along with return, (ii) writ of certiorari declaring the impugned order of retirement as bad, illegal and unconstitutional; (iii) writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order of retirement as illegal and unconstitutional; (iv) order directing the opp. parties to consider the representation of the petitioner (Anx-11) for voluntary retirement; (v) writ of mandamus directing the opp. parties to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service benefits; (vi) Order allowing all or any other relief/reliefs as would be available to the petitioner under law; (vii) Order allowing the application with costs; And Pass such other order/orders as deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case; And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray." 2. The sequence of events as revealed from the writ petitions is that the petitioner while practicing as an Advocate at Koraput, appeared in the O.P.S.C. Recruitment test under Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II (Munsif) (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1974 in which the petitioner secured 1st position. Consequently, he attended medical examination and police verification etc. prior to appointment. Thereafter, he got appointment as Munsif, Class-II by the Governor of Orissa (under Article 234 of the Constitution). His service was placed with the High Court of Orissa-opposite Party No. 2 under Article 235 of the Constitution for administrative control and vesting of power. As such, to function as Judicial Officer of the State, he joined as J.M.F.C. at Chhatrapur in obedience to the orders of High Court and continued till May, 1978. In the month of June, 1978, he was posted as J.M.F.C., Bhadrak and continued till May, 1979, when he was posted as S.D.J.M.-cum-Munsif, Nayagarh and continued till May, 1982. In June, 1979, he was promoted and posted as S.D.J.M., Balasore and continued till May, 1984, worked as Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar till June, 1987. While working as Asst. Commissioner, High Court made an unprecedented and illegal endeavour by superseding the petitioner and 27 other Officers of the Batch, allowed promotion to three out of 28 Officers appointed in 1978. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this High Court being authorized by all his batch mates. The said writ petition was registered as OJC No. 2254 of 1985. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of O.J.S. Class-I (Sub-Judge) in usual course and maintained his top position in his batch. In the month of June, 1987, the petitioner posted as Sub-Judge-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Aska. 2.1. The writ petition, filed by the petitioner i.e. OJC No. 2254 of 1985 was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1988 (II) OLR 97 (Aswini Kumar Das Pattanayak and others vs. The High Court of Orissa and others) whereby the petitioner and his batch mates were declared senior to opposite party Nos. 3 to 30 therein and the decisions were worked out. 2.2. The opposite parties therein filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11297 of 1988 before the Supreme Court i.e. Birakishore Mishra and others vs. Orissa High Court & others; wherein the petitioner was the opposite party No.3. The said SLP was dismissed on 12.7.1995. 3 to 30 therein and the decisions were worked out. 2.2. The opposite parties therein filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11297 of 1988 before the Supreme Court i.e. Birakishore Mishra and others vs. Orissa High Court & others; wherein the petitioner was the opposite party No.3. The said SLP was dismissed on 12.7.1995. 2.3. In the month of January, 1990, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Sub-Judge-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge & J.M.F.C., Anandapur and he continued there till 16.08.1990. During such incumbency, Sri M.R. Nanda, Commissioner of Endowment, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide D.O. Letter No. 641 dated 31.05.1990 informed the Petitioner, Sub-Judge, Anandapur, that on 18.06.1990 he was required to explain and intimate directly to the Law Department, Government of Odisha in the matter of execution of order passed O.A. No.176/85 under Section 19 of O.H.R.E. Act which was passed by the then Commissioner of Endowment-Sri Prahallad Mishra, after expiry of the appeal period of 30 days relating to Bharati Math of Bhubaneswar, to which, the petitioner answered vide letter No.1 dated 19.06.1990 (confidential) to the Law Department enclosing available papers. 2.4. On 22.08.1990, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Sub-Judge-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Nayagarh. In Sept, 1991, he got promotion to the cadre of Superior Judicial Service (Junior Branch) as Chief Judicial Magistrate taking into consideration his seniority and suitability by the High Court. The Petitioner joined as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-A.S.J.-cum-JMFC-cum-Additional Sub-Judge and Presiding Officer, Juvenile Court at Berhampur where Sri M.R. Nanda was District & Session Judge. On Petitioners courtesy visit on the day of joining at Berhampur, Sri M.R. Nanda expressed his resentment and displeasure to the petitioner for the act of the petitioner to reply to the Government while he was the Sub- Judge, Anandapur regarding the auction of land relating to Bharati Math, Bhubaneswar with available documents with the Petitioner then for which the said land was declared as Green Belt unfit for conversion to house site for which Sri Nanda allegedly suffered pecuniary loss as he had allegedly purchased a plot out of that in the name of his only son. Such version of Sri Nanda created panic to the petitioner, who begged his unconditional apology for his unintentional reply to the Law Department but Mr. Nanda was neither persuaded nor satisfied rather he openly threatened to the petitioner to see him out of job. Such version of Sri Nanda created panic to the petitioner, who begged his unconditional apology for his unintentional reply to the Law Department but Mr. Nanda was neither persuaded nor satisfied rather he openly threatened to the petitioner to see him out of job. Thus, the petitioner became a victim of the situation for no fault of him. Thereafter, the petitioner was allegedly victimized by the then District Judge taking some plea or other. 2.5. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner on 21.05.1992 made a representation to this Court vide letter No. 846, dated 21.05.1992 for his transfer as per the grounds stated therein. While the matter stood thus, the then District Judge sent another letter dated 01.07.1992 alleging that when he was working as Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for bail on 20.05.1992 under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. but, subsequently, the petitioner allowed the bail of that accused, when he was kept in charge of S.D.J.M., Berhampur on 12.06.1992. As such, the petitioner was asked to explain the allegation in the D.O. within seven days. 2.6. On 07.07.1992 the petitioner replied to the District & Sessions Judge vide Letter No.2 dated 07.07.1992 that in good-faith, judicious consideration of materials on record, appreciation of prolonged custody of the U.T.P., no sign of progress in investigation, compromise between the informant and accused and there being no objection of the Counsel for the State, the petitioner had allowed the prayer for bail citing the decision of this Court that under changed circumstances bail can be allowed U/s. 437 Cr.P.C. though earlier rejected U/s. 439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge. 2.7. On 14.07.1992 the petitioner received a copy of the order of Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Crl. M.C. No. 391/92 where allegedly the order of (the petitioner) A.C.J.M., Berhampur was up-held and petition under Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected, vide Memo No. 8036 dt. 13.07.1992. On 08.08.1992 at 3 p.m. the petitioner received a copy of confidential letter of the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court addressed to the District & Sessions Judge, Ganjam- Berhampur in Courts Memo No. 7074 dated 31.07.1992 wherein the petitioner was directed to proceed on leave for a month. The petitioner was informed vide Memo No. 7075 dt. 31.07.1992. 2.8. 13.07.1992. On 08.08.1992 at 3 p.m. the petitioner received a copy of confidential letter of the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court addressed to the District & Sessions Judge, Ganjam- Berhampur in Courts Memo No. 7074 dated 31.07.1992 wherein the petitioner was directed to proceed on leave for a month. The petitioner was informed vide Memo No. 7075 dt. 31.07.1992. 2.8. On 11.9.92 the petitioner, while on leave, received Memo No. 8026/LX-5/89 (confidential) dated 07.09.1992 and annexures (two sheets) showing that on the representation in person before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice on 26.8.1992, the High Court required Mr. Nanda to substantiate his allegations as per D.O. letter No. 35/274.92(C) addressed to the Court and Mr. Nanda obtained statements of two lawyers, who were enemically deposed of against the petitioner at Berhampur. The petitioner was required to submit his report within 3 days of receipt of the memo. The petitioner presented his explanation in person to the Special Officer explaining everything and enclosed 87 (eighty seven) sheets of documents of showing the medical treatment of his father-in-law for paralysis and other severe ailments ever since 13.07.1989 for perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 2.9. On 14.09.1992, the petitioner received Memo No.70/92C dated 08.09.1992 of the District Judge communicating this Courts Memo No. 7959/XIX-7/92 (confidential/immediate) to extend the leave for 10 days more as the complaint made against the petitioner could not be considered before 08.09.1992 and the leave of the petitioner was extended. Thereafter, the petitioner received D.O. letter No. 74/92-C dated 16.09.1992 of Mr. Nanda, the then District Judge to the effect that the Special Officer directed him over phone to request the petitioner to extend leave till the matter is finalized. Thereafter, on 18.09.1992, the petitioner received Memo No. 78/92C dated 18.9.92 of the then District Judge communicating this Courts Memo No. 8282/LX-5/89 dated 15.09.1992 for extension of leave. The petitioner accordingly applied for extension of leave addressing a letter to Registrar (Admn.) of this vide letter No. 1315/21.9.92 giving his home address during the leave period. The petitioner received D.O. letter No. 80/92-C dt. 5.10.92 of the District Judge, wherein he was required to get examined the physical condition of his father-in-law and to treat the letter to be extremely urgent. The petitioner received D.O. letter No. 80/92-C dt. 5.10.92 of the District Judge, wherein he was required to get examined the physical condition of his father-in-law and to treat the letter to be extremely urgent. Accordingly, at 3 p.m., the petitioner sent a manuscript answer showing that his father-in-law was admitted to the cardiology ward of MKCG Medical College for his serious cardiac trouble on 4.10.92 and on 5.10.92 his father-in-law was admitted to coronary care Unit No. 1 of Cardiology Department of M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur for his intensive care. 2.10. The petitioner, however, joined duty on 16.11.1992. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred as A.C.J. (Special), Orissa, Cuttack. The petitioner joined as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Orissa at Cuttack after being relieved from his place of posting. While the petitioner was continuing as such, he received a confidential letter No.44/18.12.92 of District Judge, Cuttack along with the charge sheet in D.P. No.4 of 1992 initiated against him. On 18.12.92 the petitioner requested the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court through the District Judge to supply copy of the relevant documents having nexus with both the charges and to verify the records in the Court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur and to extend time to file his explanation. But, the petitioner was only permitted to peruse the records in G.R.- 138/92 & G.R.-317/92. The District Judge, Cuttack vide letter No. 6 (confidential) dated 16.01.1993 intimated the petitioner that this Court was pleased to extend 15 days beyond 16.1.93 for submitting the Written Statement of defence in the proceeding. The petitioner submitted his comprehensive written explanation with 17 (Seventeen) numbers of Annexures i.e. 1 to 17 but during the proceeding those documents were withheld by the High Court at their level without communicating the reasons for the same. On 23.04.1993, the High Court appointed District Judge, Cuttack as the Inquiry Officer and Special Officer (Admn.) of this Court as the Marshalling Officer to present the case in support of the charges before the Inquiry Officer and the same was informed to the petitioner vide Memo No. 4265 dt. 23.4.93/7.5.93. The District Judge, Cuttack intimated the petitioner to the effect that the enquiry proceeding would be taken up on 03.07.1993 and intimated the petitioner to participate therein in his letter No.52 dt. 1.7.93 (confidential). On 3.7.93 the Inquiry was taken up. 23.4.93/7.5.93. The District Judge, Cuttack intimated the petitioner to the effect that the enquiry proceeding would be taken up on 03.07.1993 and intimated the petitioner to participate therein in his letter No.52 dt. 1.7.93 (confidential). On 3.7.93 the Inquiry was taken up. The G.R. case records in G.R. Case No.317/92 and G.R. Case No.138/92 were allowed to be kept with the Marshalling Officer. The Marshalling Officer prayed to produce records in Crl.M.C. No.329/92 and Crl.M.C. No. 281/92, which was readily allowed by Inquiry Officer and the matter was fixed to 7.8.93 for production of said two records. The Marshalling Officer filed case records in G.R.- 138/92, G.R.- 317/92, Crl. M.C. No. 281/92 and Crl.M.C. No. 329/92 but no copy of any of such record was given to the petitioner. The Marshalling Officer declined to give oral evidence and disclosed besides production of the documents he has nothing to say. The petitioner prayed for granting copies of documents filed by the Marshalling Officer but no copy was supplied asking the petitioner to file the list of documents he needed, although the records were with the Marshalling Officer till that date. Copies prayed for by the petitioner were also not supplied. The Inquiry Officer directed the office to prepare only the Xerox copy of the order sheet within a week and supply the same to the petitioner as if he was representing the Opp. Party No. 2. Accordingly, only illegible xerox copies of order sheets were supplied to the petitioner. Surprisingly, when the petitioner was out on circuit court duty the enquiry was posted to 4.12.93 for evidence by the delinquent. 2.11. On 04.12.1993, the petitioner prayed for copies of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority and other copies of the proceeding but the I.O. turned down the prayer for supply of copies of documents and evidence admitted, in the enquiry. On 07.01.1994, the proceeding was adjourned as no Inquiry Officer was available. On 11.02.1994, the District Judge-cum-Inquiry Officer adjourned on the ground that he had joined one week before and was busy in administrative work. On 02.04.1994, the prayer for supply of copies of documents relied on by Opposite Party No.2 was refused and 23 nos of documents that petitioner had filed along with his written statement were suppressed by Opposite Party. On 11.02.1994, the District Judge-cum-Inquiry Officer adjourned on the ground that he had joined one week before and was busy in administrative work. On 02.04.1994, the prayer for supply of copies of documents relied on by Opposite Party No.2 was refused and 23 nos of documents that petitioner had filed along with his written statement were suppressed by Opposite Party. On the other hand, the I.O. asked the petitioner to produce the copies of those documents alleged to have been enclosed with his show cause reply, which was against the principles of natural justice. On 07.05.1994, the enquiry resumed/opened. The petitioner was examined as D.W. in part and the inquiry was posted to 25.06.1994. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred by orders of this Court and directed to join as C.J.M. and Assistant Sessions Judge at Sambalpur where he joined on 8.6.1994 and continued till prematurely retired i.e. 31.5.96 U/R. 71(a), Orissa Service Code. The petitioner had attended the inquiry conducted by Opp. Party No. 2. The petitioner submitted his preliminary show cause reply to the inquiry report for placement before Disciplinary Authority vide his Office Letter No. 1282 dt. 24.8.95 through the District Judge, Sambalpur comprising 100 (one hundred) pages and requested to submit the final show cause as addenda after receipt of necessary documents in the D.P.- 4/92. Disciplinary Authority felt that documents and papers were not provided to defend the allegations at the charges properly and sent Telegram to District Judge, Sambalpur with reference to D.J.s letter No. 110 dt. 11.8.95 and letter No. 3049 dt. 12.8.95, to allow the petitioner to come to Cuttack and peruse the documents available on record on 18.9.95 in presence of Marshalling Officer of the D.P.-4/92 i.e. Special Officer (Admn.) of this Court and to furnish the second show cause by 31.10.95. District Judge intimated the petitioner vide Memo No. 5159 dt. 16.9.95 and granted permission. Petitioner was allowed to peruse the whole bundle of file of documents kept with Special Officer (Admn.), High Court (Sri S.K. Pradhan) and the petitioner obtained the extracts of necessary documents. Thereafter, the petitioner received letter of District Judge, Sambalpur to file the show cause by 31.10.95. On 20.10.1995 the petitioner submitted his reply to show cause dt. 24.8.95 sent by District Judge, Sambalpur vide Memo No. 3050 dt. 25.8.95. Thereafter, the petitioner received letter of District Judge, Sambalpur to file the show cause by 31.10.95. On 20.10.1995 the petitioner submitted his reply to show cause dt. 24.8.95 sent by District Judge, Sambalpur vide Memo No. 3050 dt. 25.8.95. District Judge, Sambalpur forwarded the said Rejoinder (Annexure-14 in OJC-11033/96) vide his Memo No. 151/C dt. 20.10.95. While the petitioner was availing first half of summer vacation at Berhampur, he was served with the notice of compulsory premature retirement by the District Judge, Sambalpur vide Governments Memo No. 26673/H.C. and 26674 dt. 16.5.96- to be relieved on 31.5.96 A.N. Petitioner was relieved and he handed over charge of his office and left Sambalpur. However, subsequently, the petitioner received the letter of Registrar, Civil Courts, Sambalpur in Memo No. 1972 dt. 26.6.96 wherein he was communicated that he was also removed from service in D.P. No. 4 of 1992 by High Court. No date of removal has been indicated therein specifying as to whether the order of removal was before the premature retirement or after the same. The writ in OJC No. 11033/96 has been filed against the said order of removal from service. 3. By way of the connected writ petition i.e. OJC No. 11034 of 1996, the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory/ premature retirement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the dismissal order which came to be passed, was an outcome of victimization and subsequent order of compulsory retirement are required to be quashed and set aside in view of the outstanding service rendered by the petitioner. 5. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 409 and the decision of this Court in the cases of Epari Vasudeva Rao vs. State of Orissa and another (W.P.(C) No.11108 of 2013 disposed of on 15.04.2014), Indramani Sahu vs. State of Orissa and another (OJC No.6601 of 1995, disposed of on 24.10.2017), Subhendra Mohanty vs. High Court of Orissa and other (W.P.(C) No.7398 of 2013, disposed of on 31.07.2017), and Pitambar Patra vs. Registrar General, High Court of Orissa, Cuttack and others, reported in 2017 (II) OLR 699 . 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Full Court while considering the order of compulsory retirement, has taken a sympathetic view taking into account the entire sequence of the events, materials available on record and his confrontation with the then learned District Judge. In our considered opinion the departmental proceeding which were initiated against the petitioner, ultimately culminated compulsory retirement which is not a punishment. In that view of the matter, the Full Court taking into consideration the overall situation and looking into the conduct of the petitioner, has taken a sympathetic view for compulsory retirement. The Full Court while considering the proposed punishment of removal thought it proper that the petitioner should be allowed to retire compulsorily. 8. Looking into the facts available on record, we are of the view that it will not be appropriate to differ the decision of the Full Court and substitute our own. We are in complete agreement with the decision of the Full Court. 9. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner referred to hereinabove are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. 10. Thus, the writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.