Ramesh Chandra Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3109 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ramesh Chandra Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 6 April, 2026

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          W.P.(C) No.1330 of 2026


        Ramesh Chandra Jena                     ....               Petitioner
                                                         Mr. S. Jena, Advocate

                                      -versus-

        State of Odisha and Others              ....      Opposite Parties
                                                     Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA


                            COROM:
              JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                      ORDER

Order No                            06.04.2026
     02. 1.    This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed but on the consent of the leaned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter was heard at the stage of admission and disposed of by the present order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issue involved in the case present is covered by an order passed by this Court on 20.01.2026 in W.P.(C) No.1859 of 2026.

5. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

               i)    Admit the Writ Petition;

               ii)   Call for the records;
                               // 2 //

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ/writs by quashing the impugned rejection order passed by the 0pp. Party No.2 dated 24.12.2025 under Annexure-8 Series and to declare the same illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law governing the field.

iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, by directing the Opposite Parties, particularly. Opposite Party No.2 to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in the OCR of the Petitioner for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and 15.08.2021 to 03.12.2021 under Annexure-7 Series and further the Opposite Parties may be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police as per his eligibility and the petitioner may be extended with all other consequential and service benefits as due and admissible within a reasonable time.

v) And/or pass any other order as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of this case."

6. It is contended that against the adverse CCR communicated to the Petitioner under Annexure-6 series dtd.13.09.2021 and 29.11.2022, Petitioner when made his representation under Annexure-7 series vide letter dtd.15.09.2025, the Opp. Party No.2 refused to consider the representation on the ground that the representation has been filed beyond the period of limitation under Annexure-8 series communication dtd.24.12.2025.

6.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner is affected because of the adverse CCR and though it is not disputed that the representation was filed beyond the period of limitation, but the same should have been considered by Opp. Party No.2 in accordance with law, but the

// 3 //

Opp. Party No. 2 refused to consider the representation on the ground of delay.

6.2. It is contended that since Petitioner's career is in jeopardy because of the adverse CCR, unless his representation is considered in accordance with law, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced.

7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned rejection available under Annexure-8 series, contended that against the adverse CCR communicated on dated 13.09.2021 and 29.11.2022, Petitioner was required to file his representation within a period of 45 days and not beyond a period of 6 months.

7.1. It is contended that against such adverse CCR, Petitioner admittedly made the representation on 15.09.2025, which is beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, Opp. Party No.2 rejected the representation on the ground of delay vide the impugned order dtd.24.12.2025 under Annexure-8 series. It is accordingly contended that since at every stage Petitioner is making delayed grievance before the authority, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that against the adverse CCR communicated to the Petitioner under Annexure-6

// 4 //

series on 13.09.2021 and 29.11.2022, Petitioner made the representation on 15.09.2025 under Annexure-7 series.

8.1. As found, such representation of the Petitioner was not entertained on the ground of delayed submission by Opp. Party No.2 vide order dtd.24.12.2025 under Annexure-8 series. Though it is not disputed that Petitioner has submitted the representation beyond the period of limitation, but it is the view of this Court that since Petitioner is affected because of such adverse CCR, Opp. Party No.2 should have considered the representation on merit instead of rejecting the same on the ground of delay vide order under Annexure-8 series.

8.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing orders issued under Annexure-8 series, directs Opp. Party No.2 to consider the representation made by the Petitioner as against the adverse CCR under Annexure-6 series in accordance with law within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner.

9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Basudev

Date: 08-Apr-2026 10:52:01