CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has quashed the premature retirement of former AYUSH director Bibhu Prasad Sarangi, holding that the state government had not followed its own guidelines while retiring him from service, particularly when he was due to superannuate within four months.
Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy directed the government to treat Sarangi as having continued in service till his normal retirement on January 31, 2021, and extend his admissible retirement benefits.
Sarangi, who entered the Odisha Administrative Service (OAS-II) in 1987 and rose to the special secretary grade in 2017, was posted as director AYUSH, in March 2020. He was arrested on July 9, 2020, in connection with a sexual harassment case registered at Bhubaneswar Mahila police station following allegations by a female colleague. He was granted bail four days later and placed under suspension with effect from the date of his arrest.
Based on a report of the Internal Committee submitted on August 7, 2020, the government ordered his premature retirement on August 13 under Rule 71(a) of the Odisha Service Code. While considering Sarangi’s appeal, the High Court, however, found fault with the decision primarily on the ground that he was only four months away from his scheduled retirement when his case was considered for premature retirement.
The court referred to the General Administration department’s guideline of September 24, 2019, which states that ordinarily an employee should not be retired on grounds of ineffectiveness if he is due to superannuate within one year. The guideline makes an exception where there is a “sudden and steep fall in the competence, efficiency or effectiveness” of an officer during the year preceding retirement.
“Petitioner has been given premature retirement without compliance of the provisions contained in the guideline,” Justice Satapathy held.
The court also noted that despite Sarangi’s implication in the sexual harassment case, no chargesheet had been filed against him. It further observed that, apart from the Internal Committee’s report, there was no other material available against him when the premature retirement order was issued.
