Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Another vs Sailendra Narayan Praharaj on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.499 of 2023
State of Odisha and another .... Appellants
Mr. Manoja Kumar Khuntia, AGA
-versus-
Sailendra Narayan Praharaj .... Respondent
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Panda, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.04.2023
Order No.
I. A. No.1249 of 2023
01. 1. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The
delay of 206 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
W.A. No.499 of 2023
2. The Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Panda and his
associate, Advocates for Respondent is taken on record.
3. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 21st July,
2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of
W.P.C.(OAC) No.3895 of 2013 filed by the Respondent. By the
impugned order, the learned Single Judge has quashed the adverse
remarks in the Respondent's Confidential Character Rolls (CCR)
for the period 1990-91 and 1993-94 and directed the Appellants to
extend all service and financial benefits due and admissible to the
Respondent.
4. The adverse remarks were entered in the Respondent's CCRs for
the aforementioned years consequent upon his implication in a
vigilance case. After his acquittal by the Vigilance Judge, Cuttack
by a judgment dated 28th July, 2012 in T.R. Case No.139 of 2007,
the Respondent has filed O.A. No.3324 of 1997 in the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal (OAT), which disposed of the said
application by an order dated 28th February, 2013 asking for a
review DPC to be convened and the case of Respondent to be
considered. As a result of the adverse CCRs, the Respondent did
not get promotion.
5. The representation made by the Respondent against the adverse
CCRs was rejected by the Department He superannuated on 30th
September, 1998.
6. After the rejection of his representation, the Respondent again
filed an application in the OAT which came to be transferred to the
High Court and registered as W.P.C.(OAC) No.3895 of 2013. The
learned Single Judge found that the order passed by the Appellate
Authority rejecting the representation made by the Respondent
against the adverse CCRs was without application of mind and a
non-reasoned one and, therefore, unsustainable in law.
7. While quashing the said communication dated 22nd July 2013, the
learned Single Judge proceeded to quash the adverse CCRs and
then granted consequential reliefs to the Respondent.
8. This Court has heard the submission of learned counsel for the
parties.
9. If the learned Single Judge found that the order dated 22nd July,
2013 rejecting the representation by the Respondent against the
adverse CCRs was without reasons or suffered from non-
application of mind, the proper course would have been to set aside
that communication/order and sent the matter back to the Finance
Department, Government of Odisha for a fresh consideration of the
Respondent's representation against his adverse CCRs, in a time
bound manner.
10. In that view of the matter, while modifying the impugned order
of the learned Single Judge, the Court directs that as a consequence
of the communication dated 22nd July, 2013 by the Finance
Department to the Respondent being quashed, his representation
against the adverse CCRs for the above years will once again be
considered and this time a reasoned order shall be passed thereon
by the Joint Secretary to Government, Finance Department,
Government of Odisha. The said order shall be communicated to
the Respondent not later than 15th June, 2023. If there is any failure
by the Appellants-State to adhere to the above direction, it would be
open to the Respondent to seek appropriate remedies in accordance
with law.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
M. Panda
