Orissa High Court
Biren Sahoo vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 12 February, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 25654 of 2023
Biren Sahoo .... Petitioner
Dr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
2. G.A. & P.G. Department,
Government of Odisha
3. Director General of
Prisons, Directorate of
Prison's and Correctional
Services, Odisha
4. Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons,
Sambalpur
5. District Magistrate and
Collector, Sambalpur
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
12.02.2025
Order No.
03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed
assailing the order at Annexure-11 inter alia rejecting
the representation of the Petitioner against adverse
remarks.
For convenience of reference the said
Annexure-11 is extracted hereunder:-
"xxx xxx xxx
With reference to your representation
dtd.17.08.2022 on the above subject, I am
desired to inform you that after careful
consideration, Government has been pleased
to stick to continue the adverse remarks on
your PAR for the period 2020-21 (01.04.2020
to 26.02.2021) which was communicated to
you vide this department D.O. No-1307/SE,
dtd.03.06.2022.
xxx xxx xxx
3. The adverse remarks so far as the Petitioner
concerned were communicated to him vide Annexure-
1 dated 03.06.2022 which reads as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx
You are indiscipline officer and you were
transferred on administrative ground. You had
failed to report activities of warders of your
circle who filed case against Govt. Order
banning home subdivision/District postings.
Failure to report can be implied as indirect
consent which was subsequently verified to be
true as you were interested in home District
posting as Cuttack Sr. Supdt. Instances of
other misconduct are being enquired against
you in Dept. Proceeding. Do not deserve
responsible post for your betrayal activities
against Govt.
xxx xxx xxx
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that notwithstanding such adverse
remarks were communicated beyond the stipulated
period rating him "Below Average officer", he
ventilated his grievance to the authorities making
detailed representation at Annexure-10.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be
set aside, solely on the ground that no reasons have
been stated therein and cryptically it has been
mentioned that the Govt. has been pleased "to stick
to continue the adverse remarks on your PAR" which
exemplifies non-application of mind and militates
against the concept of reasons, being the heart and
soul of an order by which the incumbent will able to
know what weighed in the minds of the authorities
passing the order so as to enable him to take a
decision as to whether to abide by the same or to
assail it.
Reliance in this regard was placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
"(a) Union of India Versus Mohan Lal
Capoor reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836;
(b) Uma Charan Versus State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in (1981) 4 SCC 102"
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other
hand submits that on a very reading of Annexure-1, it
is seen that administrative action was taken against
the Petitioner because of insubordination and
considering the nature of duties performed by him as
a Senior Superintendent of Jail, there is no infirmity
in the order as passed and as such taking into
account the contours of exercise of jurisdiction of this
Court in the matter of assessment of PAR, the writ
petition is liable to be rejected.
7. Counter affidavit have already been filed on
behalf of Opposite Parties 1 to 4 as well as Opposite
Party No.2 and the Petitioner in response thereto filed
rejoinder to both the counters as is evident from the
assertions in the rejoinder in paragraph-6.
8. On perusal of the materials on record, it is
seen that the petitioner had filed a detailed
representation at Anneuxre-10 ventilating his
grievance.
9. It is his further submission that the Petitioner
has already been exonerated in the Departmental
Proceeding as per order No.15183 dated 12.04.2023.
Evidently, the exoneration from the Departmental
Proceeding could not be incorporated in the
representation since that was later in point of time.
10. Be that as it may, on perusal of the impugned
order at Annexure-11, it is seen that the authorities
have failed to indicate any reason as to the non-
consideration of the Petitioner's representation and
this Court is constrained to hold that impugned order
suffer from the vice of non-application of mind which
is evident on a bare perusal. In such view of the
matter, this Court is left with no other alternative but
to set aside Annexure-11.
11. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a
fresh representation along with a copy of this order to
the Opposite Parties therein indicating his
exoneration from Departmental Proceeding, within a
period of six weeks hence.
12. In the event such representation is made, the
authorities shall consider the same within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of
copy of this order along with such representation.
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted
as per rules.
Reason: Authentication (V. NARASINGH)
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Feb-2025 11:44:59 Judge
Ayesha
