[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Himansu Mohan Mishra vs State Of Orissa And Another Opp. Parties on 14 July, 2025
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K.Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2076 of 2024
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
Himansu Mohan Mishra Petitioner
Mr.B.S. Tripathy, Sr. Adv.
along with
Mr.Atul Tripathy, Adv.
-versus-
State of Orissa and Another Opp. Parties
Ms.B.K. Sahu, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 | Date of Judgment : 14.07.2025
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the
impugned letter of the Opposite Party No.1 dated 20.01.2024, under
Annexure-11, the DO No.1509 dated 31.10.2023, under Annexure-6, and
also to quash the adverse entries made in the PAR of the petitioner for the
year 2021-22 (for the period from 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022), under
Annexure-4.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
Page 1 of 24
2. A concise overview of the essential facts underlying the present
writ application, is as follows; initially, on 29.05.1989 the Petitioner
entered into service as a Junior Agriculture Officer at Balisankara under
the District Agriculture Officer, Sundergarh. Thereafter, upon being
promoted, he joined the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer at the Office
of the Soil Chemist, Baripada, on 09.05.2007, followed by a promotion to
the post of Assistant Director, Agriculture & Food Production on
29.01.2020, and then to the post of District Agriculture Officer,
Pattamundai, which he joined on 04.10.2021. Presently, the Petitioner is
continuing in the office of the Opposite Party No.2-the Principal
Secretary to Govt., Agriculture & Farmers’ Empowerment Department,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda, as the Joint Director, Agriculture Level-II,
Directorate of Agriculture & Food Production, Odisha.
3. The heart of the contention involved in the present writ petition
relates to the period 2021 to 2022 during which period the Petitioner was
functioning as the ADO, Pattamundai. During the said period, i.e. the
financial year 2021-2022, more specifically from 01.01.2021 to
31.03.2022 (herein referred to as the “relevant period”), the Petitioner
furnished his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR). In the self-appraisal
report attached thereto, a copy of which is produced under Annexure-3 to
the present writ petition, the Petitioner has highlighted his achievements
Page 2 of 24
in respect of the work assigned to him and has indicated a brief
description of duties discharged and tasks undertaken by him during the
relevant period of 2021-2022.
4. While things stood thus, the Petitioner received DO No.820 dated
16.06.2023, under Annexure-4 to the present writ petition, issued by the
Additional Secretary to Government, GA&PG Department
communicating adverse remarks, made by the Reporting Authority Sri
Siba Prasad Mallick on the PAR of the Petitioner for the Period 2021-
2022 (i.e. 01.01.2021 to 31.03.2022). The adverse remarks communicated
through the DO No.820 dated 16.06.2023 are reproduced hereinbelow for
better appreciation;
“You lack in supervising the field work regularly. You do
not review the progress of the works done under different
schemes operating in the blocks under your jurisdiction.
Your overall grading is “Good”.
Government hopes you will try to improve.”
5. Upon receipt of the aforesaid DO No.820, dated 16.06.2023, the
Petitioner furnished a representation, dated 28.07.2023, reproduced under
Annexure-5 to the present writ petition, ventilating his grievances before
the Additional Secretary to Government, GA&PG Department and
praying for expungement of the adverse remarks made against him in his
PAR for the relevant period during 2021-2022. The aforesaid
representation of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite Party
Page 3 of 24
No.1 and the rejection has been communicated to him vide DO No.1509
dated 31.10.2023, under Annexure-6 to the present Writ Petition.
Aggrieved by such rejection, the Petitioner had earlier approached this
court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.38618 of 2023 with a
prayer to quash the rejection order and the adverse remarks made against
him in his PAR for the relevant period 2021-2022.
6. The aforesaid writ petition was taken up by this Court and disposed
of vide order dated 30.11.2023 by setting aside the rejection order dated
31.10.2023 and directing the Addl. Chief Secretary, GA&PG
Department, Government of Odisha, who is the Opposite Party No.1 in
the present Writ Petition, to reconsider the representation of the petitioner
dated 28.07.2023 within two weeks and with a further direction to defer
the D.P.C to the post of Jt. Director, Level-I until the representation of the
Petitioner is decided upon. Following such order, the Opposite Party No.1
has considered and once again rejected the representation of the Petitioner
vide Memo No.57, dated 20.01.2024, under Annexure-11 to the present
Writ Petition on the grounds stated therein. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
rejection, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
Writ Petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
Page 4 of 24
7. Heard Mr.B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner along with Mr. Atul Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has, at the
outset, disputed the adverse remarks made in the PAR of the Petitioner
for the relevant period 2021-2022 (more precisely 01.10.2021 to
31.03.2022). It is the Petitioner’s stance that the adverse remarks made in
his PAR for the relevant period runs contrary to his actual performance
during the said period. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
contended that while the Petitioner was functioning as the ADO,
Pattamundai, there were four Blocks under his jurisdiction and he has a
100% achievement in respect of all of the 26 schemes under him during
the relevant period 2021-2022. To substantiate his claims, the Learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has laid emphasis on Anexure-2 to the
present writ petition, which contains the records of his achievements
during the relevant period, filed in the ADAPT Portal. Additionally, it
was also contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that
following the satisfactory performance and discharge of his duties by the
Petitioner during the relevant period, the Reporting Authority had himself
put the Petitioner in charge of additional two ADO circles.
8. Next, undermining the veracity of the adverse remarks made in the
PAR of the Petitioner for the relevant period 2021-2022, the Learned
Page 5 of 24
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Reporting Authority,
Sri Siba Prasad Mallick, who had made the adverse remarks in the PAR
of the Petitioner for the relevant period 2021-2022, failed to attend his
office during the three months preceding his retirement on 30.06.2022,
and, since it was during this period of absence just before his (Reporting
Authority) retirement, that the said adverse remarks were made by the
Reporting Authority, there is a serious doubt cast on the credibility of the
adverse remarks made in the PAR of the Petitioner for the relevant
period. In fact, it has also been contended that the Reporting Authority,
while making such adverse remarks in the PAR of the Petitioner, has not
verified the records pertaining to the duties discharged by the Petitioner
while he was the in-charge of ADO circles in Kedrapara, Marsaghai and
Pattamundai during the relevant period. Therefore, the Learned Counsel
for the Petitioner submits that the adverse remarks made in the PAR of
the Petitioner by the Reporting Authority, are tinted with malice and have
been made without any basis.
9. Additionally, it is also the contention of the Learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner that the sole reason for making such adverse
remarks in the PAR of the Petitioner for the relevant period of 2021-2022
is to deny the Petitioner the promotion to the post of Joint Director Level-
I. It has been submitted that the aforesaid promotional grade consists of 7
Page 6 of 24
posts and in the provisional gradation list dated 06.11.2023 of Chief
District Agriculture Officers/Joint Directors of Agriculture, Level-II,
issued vide letter No.24636, reproduced under Annexure-7 to the writ
petition, the Petitioner’s name finds place at serial no.14 of the said list.
Ergo, it is the Petitioner’s apprehension that due to such adverse remarks
being made in his PAR for the period 2021-2022 (i.e. 01.10.2021 to
31.03.2022), his prospects for being considered for promotion to the
aforesaid post might be significantly impaired.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has also contended that
after the Petitioner was communicated with the adverse remarks made in
his PAR for the relevant period 2021-2022, the Petitioner submitted a
representation dated 28.07.2023, which was promptly rejected by the
Opposite party No.1 in a mechanical manner by referring to the
Substantiation Report of the then Reporting Authority-Sri Siba Prasad
Mallick. In this context, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at
this stage, has drawn the attention of this Court to the GA Department
letter No.1200/PRO, dated 26.04.2006, containing the guidelines for
recording the PAR of Group-B officers of the State Government (herein
referred to as “the guidelines”). Referring to paragraph-5 of the said
guidelines, which stipulate “Initiation of PAR recording process by
Appraisee/Reporting Authority/Reviewing Authority/Accepting Autority”
Page 7 of 24
and para-6 of the guidelines, which contains the “Time table for
transmission of the PAR”, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the aforesaid guidelines for recording and transmission of
PARs have not been strictly adhered to by the Opposite Parties, inasmuch
as the Reporting Authority has submitted his remarks with regard to the
PAR of the Petitioner on 07.07.2022 which is a month after his retirement
on 30.06.2022. Also, the Reviewing/Accepting Authority have not
recorded their remarks within the stipulated time as per para 7(III) of the
guidelines.
11. To buttress the aforesaid contentions, the Learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner has relied on the “Remarks of the Reporting Authority”
under Annexure-A/1 series to the Counter Affidavit by Opposite Party
No.1. Additionally, it has also been submitted that the adverse remarks in
the PAR of the Petitioner for the period 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022 were
communicated to the Petitioner after more than a year on 16.06.2023 and
the Substantiation Report, relied upon by the Opposite Parties while
rejecting the Petitioner’s representation dated 28.07.2023, was called
from the ex-Reporting Authority, i.e. Sri Siba Prasad Mallick after more
than 13 months of his retirement from service on 30.06.2022. In addition,
the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the Reporting
Authority, while submitting his Substantiation Report, has done so
Page 8 of 24
without referring to any official records/reports pertaining to the dutiesdischarged by the Petitioner during the relevant period.
12. Furthermore, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has
contended that the performance of the Petitioner, in his capacity as ADO,
during the relevant period of 2021-2022 (01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022) does
not, in any way, entail/invite the adverse remarks made in his PAR for the
said period. To lend further credence to his contentions, the Learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that during the
aforesaid relevant period, the Petitioner has performed all his duties
diligently and he has neither committed any financial irregularities nor
has he been subjected to any departmental proceedings or received any
communication/Instruction from the Reporting Authority pertaining to
any alleged lack of monitoring and/or supervision in any of the
Petitioner’s field and administrative duties. It is the Petitioner’s
contention that the aforesaid facts have not been taken note of by the
Opposite Party No.1 while mechanically rejecting his representation
dated 28.07.2023.
13. In furtherance of his assertions, the Learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner contended that in several similar cases, the Opposite Parties
have expunged the adverse remarks of the officers after considering their
representations. To illustrate his point, the Learned Counsel for the
Page 9 of 24
Petitioner has stated that in the case of one Sabyashachi Dutta, Deputy
Director, this Hon’ble High Court had disposed of W.P.(C) No.33539 of
2022 vide order dated 12.12.2022 with a direction to the Opposite Parties
to consider the representation of Sri Dutta. The Opposite Party No.1, in
consonance with the order of the Hon’ble High Court, considered the
representation of the said officer and expunged the adverse remarks made
against the abovenamed, Sabyashachi Dutta, for the period 2018-2019.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his contention, has
also laid emphasis on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of UP v. Yamuna Shankar Mishra, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 7,
specifically para 7 and paragraph-11 of S.Ramachandra Raju.v. State of
Orissa, reported in AIR 1995 SC 111. In addition, the Learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on two recent
decisions by Coordinate Benches of this Court in Kailash Chandra Dora
V. State & Ors, bearing W.P.(C) No.20183 of 2021, decided on
08.01.2025 and Kartik Prasad Jena V. State & Ors., bearing W.P.(C)
No.10034 of 2021, decided on 27.05.2022.
14. In such view of the matter, the Learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the performance of the Petitioner during the
aforesaid relevant period 2021-2022 has not been taken into account by
the Opposite Party No.1 while rejecting his representation and adverse
Page 10 of 24
remarks have been made in the PAR of the Petitioner for the period 2021-
2022 in a mechanical manner and without abiding by the guidelines for
preparation and transmission of PARs. As such, the Learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for quashing of the impugned rejection
orders under Annexure-11and Annexure-6, and the impugned adverse
remarks under Annexure-4 to the present Writ Petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
15. Heard Ms. B.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite
Party-State. Learned Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties, at the very
outset has wholly opposed the stance of the Petitioner and supported the
adverse remarks made against the Petitioner in his PAR. To substantiate
his contentions, the Learned Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties
referred to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1 and
submitted that while reviewing the PAR of the Petitioner for the year
2021-2022, i.e. for the period 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022, it was seen that
the reporting authority had made an adverse remark in the PAR of the
Petitioner for the aforesaid relevant period. The said adverse remark was
communicated to the appraisee-Petitioner vide GA&PG (S.E.)
Department D.O. No.820/SE dated 16.06.2023 along with a request to the
Petitioner to file any representation against such remarks, if he so desires,
Page 11 of 24
as per Para l2(i) of the G.A(S.E.) Department PAR Guidelines
(reproduced under Annexure-A/1 series to the Counter Affidavit filed by
the Opposite Party No.1), issued vide Memo No.1199/PRO dated
26.04.2006.
16. Following the aforesaid communication of adverse remarks, the
Learned Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties contended that the
Petitioner submitted his representation dated 28.07.2023, which, as per
Para 15(i) of the aforesaid G.A(S.E.) Department PAR Guidelines, was
duly forwarded to the Reporting Authority, who is the author of the
adverse remarks in question, on 09.08.2023 vide G.A & P.G (S.E)
Department D.O. No.1145 along with a request to the said Reporting
Authority to furnish a Substantiation Report. Subsequently, a
Substantiation Report was submitted by the author of the adverse remarks
vide letter dated 16.08.2023 (under Annexure-B/1 series to the Counter
Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1) wherein, the Reporting
Authority has decided to adhere to the earlier adverse remarks made by
him in the PAR of the Petitioner.
17. Moreover, the Learned Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties has
stated that after the aforesaid adverse remarks were made in the PAR of
the Petitioner for the period 2021-2022 (i.e. 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022),
the same was communicated to the appraisee-Petitioner precisely as per
Page 12 of 24
the guidelines fixed by the G.A(S.E.) Department PAR Guidelines, issued
vide Memo No.1199/PRO dated 26.04.2006. Learned Counsel for the
State-Opposite Parties, further contended that, it is only after a careful
consideration of the representation of the Petitioner dated 28.07.2023
along with the substantiation report of the Reporting Authority, that the
Government has taken a decision to stick to the aforesaid adverse remarks
made in the PAR of the Petitioner, and such decision of the Government
has been communicated to the Petitioner vide GA&PG (S.E.) Department
D.O No.1509, dated 31.10.2023, under Annexure-C/1 to the Counter
Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1. As such, the Learned Counsel
for the State-Opposite Parties contended that all the requisite procedure
has been followed by the Opposite Parties, as per the PAR guidelines.
18. Furthermore, again referring to the Counter Affidavit filed by the
Opposite Party No.1, the Learned Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties
submitted that earlier, aggrieved by the D.O. No.1509 dated 31.102023
wherein the representation of the Petitioner dated 28.07.2023 was
rejected, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.38618 of 2023 with a prayer to quash the GA & PG (S.E.) Department
D.O. No. 1509 dated 31.10.2023 and the adverse remarks made in the
PAR of the Petitioner for the Period between 2021-2022. This Court had
disposed of the aforesaid writ petition, vide its order dated 30.11.2023, by
Page 13 of 24
setting aside the rejection order dated 31.10.2023 and with a direction to
the Opposite Parties to re-consider the representation of the Petitioner
dated 28.07.203. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the State-Opposite
Parties submitted that subsequent to the order dated 30.11.2023 of this
court, in the aforesaid writ petition, the representation of the Petitioner
was once again given due consideration by the Opposite Parties.
However, since no new facts had been brought to the forefront and no
new developments had taken place since the last time the representation
of the Petitioner was considered, the Opposite Party-State has decided not
to alter the earlier decision taken on the representation of the Petitioner
and, as such, it was decided to continue with the adverse remarks in the
PAR of the Petitioner for the relevant period. The said decision of the
Opposite Party No.1 was communicated to the Petitioner vide a speaking
order dated 20.01.2024, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure-
D/1 to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1.
19. It is pertinent to mention here that another Counter Affidavit has
been filed by the Opposite Party No.2. Referring to the said counter
affidavit, the Learned Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties contended
that although the Petitioner is an employee under the administrative
control of the Opposite Party No.2, i.e. the Department of Agriculture &
Farmers’ Empowerment, the Opposite Party No.2 does not possess the
Page 14 of 24
authority to take any action with regard to the prayer made in the present
writ petition. In fact, it is the Opposite Party No.1, i.e. the G.A&P.G.(S.E)
Department, who is the custodian of PARs of Group-A Officers of the
state, and, as such, the Opposite Party No.1 is the one having the authority
to expunge the remarks in the PAR of the Petitioner.
20. Next, with regard to the DPC for the promotion to the post of Joint
Director Level-I, Learned Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties
contended that earlier, vide order dated 26.02.2024 in the I.A No.1474 of
2024, this Court had directed that no DPC shall be held without the leave
of this court. However, later on, the Agriculture and Farmers’
Empowerment Department filed a petition for vacation of the aforesaid
order dated 26.02.2024. Subsequently, this Court, vide order dated
07.05.2024 in I.A No.5907 of 2024, modified the earlier order dated
26.02.2024 to the extent that the DPC shall be convened, however, one
post commensurate to the eligibility of the present Petitioner shall not be
filled without the leave of this Court. It is the contention of the Learned
Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties that the aforesaid order of this
Court has been followed and the DPC has been held, however, one post of
JDA-I has been not filled up. In such view of the matter the Learned
Counsel for the Opposite Party-State contended that all the grievances of
the Petitioner have been aptly addressed and there is no occasion for this
Page 15 of 24
Court to intervene in the matter. As such, it was contended that the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
21. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the documents annexed to
the record. At the outset, it appears that the primary issue involved in the
present writ petition is with regard to the adverse remarks made in the
PAR of the Petitioner for the period spanning 2021-2022 (more precisely,
from 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022). The adverse remarks in question are
reproduced below for better appreciation;
“you lack in supervising the field work regularly. You do
not review the progress of the works done under
different schemes operating in the blocks under your
jurisdiction.
Your overall grading is “Good”.
Government hopes you will try to improve.”
Indisputably, the aforesaid adverse remark was communicated to
the Petitioner vide D.O. No.820 dated 16.06.2023. After receipt of such
adverse remarks the Petitioner submitted a representation dated
28.07.2023 before the Opposite Party No.1, which was rejected vide D.O.
No.1509, dated 31.10.2023. It is pertinent to mention here that assailing
such rejection order dated 31.10.2023 the Petitioner had earlier
Page 16 of 24
approached this Court by filing a W.P.(C) No.38618 of 2023. This Court,
disposed of the aforesaid writ petition, vide its order dated 30.11.2023, by
setting aside the impugned rejection order and directing the Opposite
parties to reconsider the representation the Petitioner within two weeks.
22. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected the Petitioner’s
representation once again vide Memo No.57, dated 20.01.2024, under
Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It is the aforesaid rejection order dated
20.01.2024 under Annexure-11, along with the earlier rejection order
dated 31.10.2023 under Annexure-6 and the adverse remarks in the PAR
of the Petitioner for the period 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022, under
Annexure-4, forms the genesis of the dispute in the present writ petition.
23. It is pertinent to note here that this Court is well aware of the
restraints on the use of the power of judicial review into administrative
matters of the present nature and that the remarks by the authority are to
his subjective satisfaction. However, that said, interference by this Court
would be permissble if the process of drawing such remarks is in anyway
tainted with arbitrariness, malice or illegalities of any other nature. In this
regard, reference may be had to the concluding remarks of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 29 of the judgement dated 28.07.2000 in
Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan, reported in (2000) 6
SCC 698
Page 17 of 24
“29. …Maybe one may emphasize one aspect rather than
the other but in the appraisal of the total profile, the entire
service profile has been taken care of by the authorities
concerned and we cannot substitute our view to that of the
authorities. It is a well-known principle of administrative
law that when relevant considerations have been taken note
of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from
consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored
and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts
on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial
review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether
the process in reaching decision has been observed
correctly and not the decision as such…”
24. In order to adjudicate the matter at hand, this Court is required to
test the veracity of the adverse remarks made in the PAR of the
Petitioner for the relevant period and the process followed by the
authorities. On perusal of the adverse remarks made in the PAR of the
Petitioner for the period 2021-2022 (i.e. 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022), it
can be observed that the essence of the adverse remarks against the
Petitioner predominantly relates to two distinct qualms, viz; not
supervising field work regularly and not reviewing the progress of work
done under different schemes operational in the blocks under the
jurisdiction of the Petitioner. Now, an examination of the Substantiation
Report dated 16.08.2023 reveals that only points 4 & 8 of the Report
relate to the adverse remarks made in the PAR of the Petitioner. Next,
with regard to the timeline for submission of the remarks regarding the
Page 18 of 24
performance of the Petitioner, the guidelines, specifically the time table
under clause No.6 headlined “Time Table for Transmission of PAR”,
provide for the time stipulation within which the Appraisee, the
Reporting Authority, the Reviewing Authority and the Accepting
Authority shall record their remarks. Serial No.1 of the table relates to
“PAR at the end of financial year” and in such case the Reporting
Authority must record his remarks prior to 30th June. However, on
perusal of records pertaining to the “Remarks of Reporting Authority”,
under Annexure A/1 series to the Counter Affidavit filed by the
Opposite Party No.1, it can be seen that the Reporting Authority has
submitted his remarks on 07.07.2022 which is after the stipulated time
period.
25. Moreover, on a further examination of the record at hand, it is
clearly borne out that the adverse remarks in question relate to the
period between 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022. However, the document
under Annexure-4 to the writ petition reveals that the adverse remarks
were communicated to the Petitioner only on 16.06.2023, i.e. after more
than a year. In this context, reference may be had to Baidyanath
Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and another, reported in AIR 1989 SC
2218 wherein, the Apex Court, in para-6 of the judgement, has observed
that;
Page 19 of 24
“…The purpose of communicating adverse entries to
the Government servant is to inform him regarding
his deficiency in work and conduct and to afford him
an opportunity to make, amend, and improvement in
his work and further if the entries are not justified the
communication affords him an opportunity to make
representation. If the adverse remarks awarded to a
Government servant are communicated to him after
several years, the object of communicating entries is
defeated. It is therefore imperative that the adverse
entries awarded to a Government servant must be
communicated to him within a reasonable period to
afford him opportunity to improve his work and
conduct and also to make representation in the event
of the entry being unjustified…”
26. Similarly, in Suchismita Misra v. Registrar (Admn.), Orissa High
Court, Cuttack, bearing W.P.(C) No.8231 of 2015, a Division Bench of
this Court, with regard to timely communication of adverse remarks, in
its judgement dated 19.01.2018, has held that;
“17. With due regard to the said decision, it
appears that the object of communicating adverse
entries should be achieved if the communication is
made within reasonable period and belated
communication of entries resulted into denial of
reasonable opportunity to improve his performance”
In a similar vein, in paragraph 17 of Dev Dutt v. Union of India
& others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
paragraphs 17 and 18 have observed the following;
Page 20 of 24
“17. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a
public servant must be communicated to him within a
reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average,
good or very good entry. This is because non-
communication of such an entry may adversely affect
the employee in two ways : (1) had the entry been
communicated to him he would know about the
assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors,
which would enable him to improve his work in future;
(2) he would have an opportunity of making a
representation against the entry if he feels it is
unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence, non-
communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been
held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court
in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC
248 : AIR 1978 SC 597] that arbitrariness violates
Article 14 of the Constitution.
18. Thus, it is not only when there is a
benchmark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is
poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be
communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is
violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul
of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be
communicated since that would boost the morale of the
employee and make him work harder.”
27. Furthermore, on an additional scrutiny of the record, specifically
the document pertaining to the achievement of the Petitioner uploaded to
the ADAPT portal, under Annexure-2 series to the present writ Petition, it
can be clearly observed that the Petitioner has 100% achievement with
regard to the implementation of various schemes under his administrative
jurisdiction. Moreover, it is also the Petitioner’s contention that owing to
Page 21 of 24
the Petitioner’s performance and the satisfactory discharge of his duties,
the Reporting Authority of the Petitioner, who made the adverse remarks
in the PAR of the Petitioner for the 2021-2022 period, had himself
ordered the Petitioner to take charge of two additional ADO circles. Such
conduct of the Reporting Authority seems to be in stark contrast to the
adverse remarks made by him in the PAR of the Petitioner for the period
2021-2022. Additionally, the Petitioner has averred that prior to the
recording of the adverse remarks in his PAR he had neither received any
complaints nor had he been communicated any deficiencies pertaining to
the discharge of his duties. The Opposite Parties have also failed to bring
anything on record to controvert this stance of the Petitioner.
Consequently, in the aforesaid context, the adverse remarks recorded in
the Petitioner’s PAR for the relevant period 20210-2022 appear even
more confounding.
28. Additionally, the Petitioner has also made clear allegations to the
effect that the Reporting Authority was absent from his office during the
last three months prior to his retirement on 30.06.2022, and it is during
this time that the adverse remarks were made in the PAR of the Petitioner
by the Reporting Authority (i.e. on 07.07.2022). The aforesaid assertions
of the Petitioner’s counsel have not been specifically denied by the
Opposite Parties. Therefore, by applying the doctrine of non-traverse, the
Page 22 of 24
aforesaid contention of the Petitioner is deemed to have been admitted by
the Opposite Parties. In this context, it is needless to mention that it is a
settled principle of law, as has been observed in State of U.P. v. Yamuna
Shanker Misra, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 7 and Union of India v. E.G.
Nambudiri, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 38, that the Reporting
Authority/Controlling Authority entrusted with the responsibility of
preparing confidential reports, must be objective, impartial and conduct
fair assessment dispassionately, without any prejudice and with the
highest sense of responsibility while giving an overall assessment of the
performance of the Officer.
29. In view of the aforesaid analysis of this Court and keeping in view
the factual background of the present case, taking into consideration the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, on perusal of the documents annexed to the present petition and
considering the aforesaid analysis, this court has no hesitation in quashing
the impugned adverse remarks made in the PAR of the Petitioner for the
period 2021-2022 (i.e. from 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022) under Annexure-
4, the D.O. No.1509 dated 31.10.2023 under Annexure-6 and the
impugned letter dated 20.01.2024 under Annexure-11. Accordingly,
Annexures-4, 6 and 11 are hereby quashed and set aside. Furthermore, the
Opposite Parties are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for
Page 23 of 24
promotion against the Post kept reserved, subject to his eligibility and
seniority, within a period of eight weeks from today.
30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 14th July, 2025 / Anil/ Jr. Steno
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Page 24 of 24
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 15-Jul-2025 10:05:43
[ad_2]
Source link