Krushna Chandra Behera vs Commissioner-Cum
2025 Latest Caselaw 6097 Ori

Orissa High Court

Krushna Chandra Behera vs Commissioner-Cum on 20 June, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        W.P.(C) No. 38354 of 2023

        Krushna Chandra Behera             ....                       Petitioner
                                                          Ms. S. Pani, Advocate

                                        -versus-

        Commissioner-cum-
        Secretary, Deptt. Of               ....               Opposite Parties
        Higher Education &
        Others
                                                          Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA


                            CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                          ORDER

20.06.2025 Order No.

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders and direction/ directions under Article-226 of the Constitution of India and more particularly to issues:-

1. Writ of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to quash the whimsical, impugned and illegal rejection orders dated 04.03.2022 (for 2019-20), 21.03.2022 (for 2020-21) 21.06.2023 (for 2019-20) and 23.06.2023 (for 2020-21) Annexure- 7, 8, 12 & 13 communicated to petitioner to entry adverse remarks in CCR/PAR without // 2 //

opinions of reviewing authority and accepting authority as reflected blank space under Annexure-14 not completed within two months keeping in view the Judgment / order dated W.P (C) 10034 of 2021 (Kartika Prasad Jena versus State of Odisha and others) under Annexure-15

2. Direction directing Opposite Parties to give promotion to petitioner from Asst. Professor (Stage-1) to next higher posts as per eligibility, as juniors promoted. And pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness, petitioner shall ever pray."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that while continuing as a Lecturer in Mathematics in Binayak Acharya College, Berhampur vide letter dtd.30.09.2021 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was communicated with the adverse CCR with various allegations.

4.1. It is contended that Petitioner though made a detailed reply under Annexure-2, but prior to taking a decision in the matter, Petitioner again was communicated with an adverse CCR vide letter dtd.05.01.2022 under Annexure-5. Petitioner though submitted a detailed reply under Annexure-6, but without proper appreciation of the same, when his prayer to expunge the adverse CCR was rejected vide communication dtd.21.03.2022 under Annexures-7 & 8, Petitioner challenging the rejection as well as the adverse CCR so communicated under Annexures-1 and 5 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34447 of 2022. However, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order

// 3 //

dtd.16.12.2022 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to move the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances.

4.2. It is contended that in terms of the said liberty, Petitioner made a fresh representation against the adverse CCR so issued under Annexures-1 and 5 before Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexures-10 and 11, reiterating the stand already taken in his reply under Annexures-2 and 6.

4.3. It is contended that even though while submitting his reply to the adverse CCR so issued under Annexures- 1 and 5, Petitioner submitted a detailed reply, but Opposite Party No.1 without proper appreciation of the grounds taken in the reply filed under Annexures-10 & 11 rejected the prayer to expunge the adverse CCR vide the impugned order dtd.23.06.2023 under Annexure-13.

4.4. It is contended that while rejecting the Petitioner's prayer to expunge the adverse CCR vide the impugned order no reason has been assigned while not accepting the grounds taken by the Petitioner in his reply. Such prayer of the Petitioner to expunge the adverse CCR was rejected only on the ground that no sufficient ground has been raised.

4.5. It is contended that in his reply under Annexures-10 and 11, which was made pursuant to the liberty granted

// 4 //

by this Court in its order under Annexure-9, Petitioner has taken various grounds in support of his prayer to expunge the adverse CCR. But without assigning any eason, such a prayer has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.23.06.2023 under Annexure-13.

4.6. It is contended that since no justifiable reason has been assigned, save and except indicating that no sufficient ground is there to expunge the adverse CCR, the impugned rejection available under Annexure-13 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.1.

5.1. It is contended that taking into account the allegations made and the adverse CCR communicated under Annexures-1 and 5, after due consideration of the reply submitted by the Petitioner under Annexures-10 and 11, the prayer to expunge the adverse CCR was rejected vide order dtd.23.06.2023 under Annexure-13. The stand taken in Para-11 and 12 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-

"11. That there have been serious allegations against the conduct of the petitioner such as he is not sincere towards his duties, warnings given to him on his bad behavior, withdrawal of his assignment due to inadequate performance as Accounts Bursar of the college, gross misuse of biometric system of attendance

// 5 //

and creating disturbance among the staff and college juniors.

12. That the arguments advanced by the petitioner stating that (1) immethodical procedures adopted by the Department of Higher Education in entering adverse remarks without recording the proper opinions of the designated reviewing authority and the accepting authority and (ii) non-communication of such opinions to the Petitioner within two months in accordance with the declared government policies but in the course of the petition the substantiality question of merit as to whether the final remarks in the PAR is sustainable or not was tactically put forth by the petitioner which is bad in the eyes of the law, are not tenable as the same were raised in the previous writ petition and the Reviewing Authority has addressed the same in its rejection of his representation."

5.2. It is accordingly contended that since after due appreciation of the stand taken in the reply submitted by the Petitioner under Annexures-10 and 11, the prayer of the Petitioner to expunge the adverse CCR has been rejected, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that against the adverse CCR communicated under Annexures-1 and 5, Petitioner made a detailed reply vide Annexures-2 and 6. On the face of such reply filed by the Petitioner when his claim was rejected vide communication issued on 04.03.2022 and 21.03.2022 under Annexures-7 and 8, the matter was carried to this Court by challenging such rejection in W.P.(C) No.34447 of 2022.

// 6 //

6.1. As found from the record, basing on the liberty granted by this Court in its order under Annexure-9, Petitioner filed a fresh reply against the adverse CCR vide Annexures-10 and 11 before Opposite Party No.1. It is found that Petitioner in his reply under Annexures-10 and 11 took various grounds in support of his stand that no adverse CCR should have been communicated. But as found from the impugned order passed on 23.06.2023 under Annexure-13, no reason has been assigned as to why the stand taken by the Petitioner was not found to be sufficient ground for expunging the adverse CCR.

6.2. Since no reason has been assigned while rejecting the Petitioner's prayer to expunge the adverse CCR in order dtd.23.06.2023 so passed by Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-13, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.23.06.2023. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision taking into account the reply submitted by the Petitioner under Annexures-10 and 11 in its proper perspective. This Court further directs Opposite Party No.1 to give a personal hearing to the Petitioner and decide the issue afresh. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order before Opposite Party No.1 within a period of ten

// 7 //

(10) days hence for taking appropriate action in the matter as directed.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK