CUTTACK: In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court on Friday set aside the premature retirement order of Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo, a senior judicial officer, who was retired at the age of 55 instead of the normal age of 60.
The division bench comprising Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo partially allowed the writ petition filed by Sahoo, holding that the impugned order suffered from procedural and substantive irregularities.
Sahoo, who joined the district judiciary as an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Second Class on November 17, 1997, was serving as the presiding judge of the Family Court in Nabarangpur at the time when his premature retirement from service was ordered. Advocate Purusottam Chuli represented the petitioner in the matter.
The government’s notification dated March 11, 2022, cited multiple grounds including past disciplinary proceedings in 2007, a complaint from a night watchman alleging use of caste-based and abusive language, and a district bar association grievance over his alleged misconduct, unruly behaviour and non-supply of cause lists. However, the court noted that all such allegations had been examined, dropped, and did not result in any adverse findings.
Importantly, the bench emphasised that Sahoo had earned successive promotions, including to the selection grade of District Judge, and had cleared the judicial review at the age of 50 in 2017. His final promotion was granted in 2021, just a year before his retirement was ordered.
“The petitioner has put in a long service and the allegations levelled were not sustained after proper examination,” the judgment observed. The decision to retire him prematurely appears to be “punitive” and “stigmatic”, as demonstrated through pleadings and materials available, the bench added.
The court held that the principles of natural justice were not followed, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to represent himself before the decision was made. Given the high standards of integrity expected from judicial officers, the bench said that the matter requires reconsideration by the Jurisdictional Review Committee.
The court accordingly quashed the premature retirement order and said, “Matter is remitted back for consideration afresh keeping open all contentions, in the light of observations herein above made.”