Orissa High Court
Upama Kalo vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite ... on 28 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.32001 of 2024
Upama Kalo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Atul Tripathy
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
M.R.Mohanty, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
28.01.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Govt. Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to;
i) quash the impugned DO No.63 dt.24.01.2024 under
Annexure-4 as well as impugned DO No.1312 dt.19.10.2024
under Annexure-7 and also quash the impugned adverse
entries in in the PAR of the petitioner for the year 2022-23
(from 10.06.2022 to 31.10.2022) by holding the aforesaid
impugned adverse entries as not only bad and illegal in law,
but also contrary to the GA Dept. guideline under
Annexure-1; and thereby direct the Govt. to treat the period
under the aforesaid adverse entries as outstanding for all
practical purposes;
ii) pass such other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the
bonafide interest of justice."
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
although the petitioner has filed representation dated 02.02.2024
under Annexure-6 before the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of
Odisha, General Administration and Public Grievance Department-
Opposite Party No.1, the same was disposed of in Annexure-7
without assigning any reason.
5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
by referring to Annexure-2 (page nos.33 and 34) to the writ petition
submitted before this Court that the Reporting Authority, the
Reviewing Authority & the Accepting Authority are the same person
i.e. Shri G.V.V. Sarma (Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha). In the
aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Pradip Kumar
Chakra vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.38561 of 2023 decided on
16.08.2024. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel
for the Petitioner submitted that the Coordinate Bench while deciding
the dispute has referred to the judgment of this Court in Manoranjan
Pratihari vs. State of Odisha and another in W.P.(C) No.20152 of
2021 vide order dated 25.04.2023. The observations made in the case
of Manoranjan Pratihari (supra) have also been quoted in para-8.9 of
the judgment in Pradip Kumar Chakra's case (supra) which is
extracted hereinbelow:-
"Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and
upon a careful consideration of the background facts as well
as the materials placed before this Court and the pleadings of
the parties, this Court is of the considered, view that the main
allegation against the Petitioner having been admitted by the
Opposite Parties' counter affidavit in para-16 to the effect that
one authority has acted as Reporting, Reviewing as well as
Accepting Authority, the impugned order rejecting the
representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 is
unsustainable in law. Moreover, on a perusal of the impugned
order dated 28 12.2020 under Annexure-4, this Court is of the
considered view that the same does not reflect any reasons as
to why the ground raised has been rejected. The same appear
to make the rejection order rejecting the representation of the
Petitioner. Further, this Court also is of the considered view
that such type of order is very purpose of providing an
opportunity to the Petitioner to represent any adverse in his
PAR/CCR. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it
proper to set aside the order under Annexure-4 dated
28.12.2020. Further, the matter is remanded back to the
Opposite party No.1 to reconsider the matter afresh in
accordance with the rules and the law governing the plea. The
Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to reconsider the matter and
pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within six weeks
from the date of communication of this Court after reviewing
the service records of the Petitioner. A decision so taken he
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the RTI
reply dated 08.11.2024 under Annexure-8 issued by the PIO-cum-
Deputy Secretary to Govt. By referring to the letter under Annexure-
8, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has been
intimated in reply to the RTI application that the above named
G.V.V. Sarma has not submitted the substantiation report. In the
aforesaid context, he further contended that the same is contrary to
the guidelines dated 26.04.2006 issued by the G.A. and P.G. Dept. of
Govt. of Odisha.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection,
if a direction is given to the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of
Odisha, General Administration and Public Grievance Department-
Opposite Party No.1 to re-consider the representation of the
petitioner in Annexure-6 in accordance with law within a stipulated
period of time.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, on a careful examinations of the materials
on record, further keeping in view the law laid down by this Court,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage
of admission by setting aside Annexures-4 and 7 with a direction to
the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of Odisha, General
Administration and Public Grievance Department-Opposite Party
No.1 to re-consider the representation of the petitioner dated
02.02.2024 under Annexure-6 in accordance with law within a period
of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this
order, keeping in view the fact that the identical remarks in respect of
the similarly placed employees have already been expunged by the
Government.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Location: High Court of Orissa
