Orissa High Court flags state govt’s ‘punitive’ order, quashes premature retirement of judicial officer

In a key verdict, the Orissa High Court on Friday set aside the premature retirement of senior judicial officer Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo and ordered that the matter be reconsidered afresh by the competent authority.

According to the case reports, Sahoo joined the judicial service in 1997 as an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Second Class.

He was posted as the presiding officer of the Family Court in Nabarangpur when the state government issued a notification on March 11, 2022, directing his premature retirement at the age of 55, five years ahead of the standard superannuation age of 60 for judicial officers.

A division bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo partially allowed the petition filed by Sahoo, observing that the retirement order was procedurally flawed and substantively unjustified.

The Court emphasised that Sahoo was not given an opportunity to present his case before the decision was made, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Grounds Lacked Merit, Promotions Undermined Government's Case

The Odisha government had cited a range of reasons to justify the retirement order, including a disciplinary proceeding from 2007, a complaint from a night watchman alleging caste-based slurs, and a boycott by the district bar association over alleged unruly behaviour and failure to issue cause lists.

However, the High Court pointed out that these allegations had either been dropped after due inquiry or did not result in any punitive findings. It also noted that Sahoo had consistently earned promotions after each review, including a selection-grade promotion to District Judge in 2021, just a year before his retirement.

The bench observed that a judicial officer who had cleared the rigorous judicial scrutiny at age 50 and continued to receive promotions based on performance could not be suddenly declared unfit for service without credible new material.

'Punitive' Action Without Due Process

Calling the retirement order “punitive” and carrying “stigmatic overtones,” the court stated that the process used to retire Sahoo prematurely fell short of the fairness expected in decisions involving sitting judges.

Accordingly, the court quashed the March 2022 notification and remitted the matter back to the jurisdictional review committee for a fresh decision.

It directed that Sahoo be granted the opportunity to represent himself and that all contentions be considered without prejudice.