Ghanashyam Patra vs Chairman-Cum-M.D. Optcl
2025 Latest Caselaw 3534 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3534 Ori
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2025

Orissa High Court

Ghanashyam Patra vs Chairman-Cum-M.D. Optcl on 3 February, 2025

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.A No.2616 of 2024

                                (Through Hybrid Mode)

            Ghanashyam Patra                      ....             Appellant

                                                    Represented By Adv. -
                                                  Mr. A. K. Rout, Advocate
                                       -versus-

            Chairman-cum-M.D. OPTCL,              ....          Respondents
            Bhubaneswar & others
                                                     Represented By Adv. -


                                CORAM:
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
                              ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                                          AND
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
                                         ORDER

03.02.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Mr. Rout, learned advocate virtually appears on behalf of

appellant, who was petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by

impugned judgment dated 31st July, 2024 made by the learned

single Judge.

2. Upon hearing Mr. Rout it appears, petitioner had challenged

communication dated 10th April, 2013, which dealt with his

representation dated 10th March, 2015. By the representation

appellant had sought adverse remarks recorded in his Executive

Performance Appraisal Report (EPAR) for year 2011-12 be

expunged.

3. By impugned communication dated 10th April, 2015 there

was reiteration that the comments made by the reporting authority

were duly made. Petitioner had been given opportunity of hearing.

There was no scope to revisit the decision on rating given to

petitioner of 'average'.

4. Prayer made by appellant in his writ petition is reproduced

below.

"The petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite parties to give him all the consequential service benefits from the date of his entitlement by quashing the order under Annexure-7 by a writ of certiorari within a stipulated period and to issue/pass any other writ, direction or order as deemed mete and proper in the interest of justice."

First prayer was for petitioner being given consequential benefits

from the date of his entitlement, on the second prayer being for

quashing of said communication dated 10th April, 2013.

5. Mr. Rout demonstrated from the appraisal made by the

reporting officer on 2nd June, 2012 that rating of 'average' was

given and comments made in the box to substantiate it. There were

no remarks made as in the 'adverse remarks' box. He placed

emphasis on absence of adverse remarks by drawing attention to

circular dated 13th March, 2007, which require counter balancing of

adverse remarks given by the reporting authority, to be made on

comments of the reviewing authority. There were no adverse

remarks made by the reporting authority. As such, no question arose

of the reviewing authority to make any comment to either confirm

or reject the adverse remarks, to counter balance it. In the

circumstances, the learned single Judge, according to Mr. Rout, had

erred both on facts as well as in law in dismissing the writ petition.

6. The controversy appears to have been created by appellant

himself. In his representation dated 10th March, 2015 he had sought

adverse remarks be expunged. First paragraph from the

representation is reproduced below.

"With due respect, I would like to point out you with reference to the above subject that I have already submitted my representations as cited under reference to the department as well as to the High court regarding expunction of the adverse remarks recorded in may EPAR for the year 2011-12. I have also met you in your office several times and have intimated the facts verbally, which may please be recalled. So, I have nothing to say anything more in this regard."

There was direction made by the writ Court for consideration of

said representation by the authority. The authority passed impugned

communication dated 10th April, 2013 dealing with the allegation of

adverse remarks. We are satisfied, there were no adverse remarks

made in the first place. We clarify as the appellate Court that

procedure referred to in arriving at reiteration of petitioner's EPAR

rating 'average' by the reporting officer on 2nd June, 2012, was duly

made. It follows, there being no adverse remarks made,

consequential benefits available to petitioner in absence thereof

must not be withheld, as may be withheld in cases of adverse

remarks, if provided by the rules.

7. We have thus heard Mr. Rout and dispose of the appeal