Orissa High Court Quashes Penalty Against Ex-Registrar (Judicial) Over Allegedly Missing File Pages, Finds No Evidence Of Malafide

While setting aside the major penalty imposed on him, the Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held–

“The concept of good faith assumes relevance in such circumstances. Good faith in administrative law and service jurisprudence does not necessarily require infallibility of judgment. It requires honesty of purpose, absence of mala fides and bona fide discharge of official duty. A subordinate officer acting transparently under recorded directions of superior authority, without concealment or personal benefit, ordinarily acts in good faith unless the directions are manifestly illegal or actuated by corrupt motive known to the subordinate officer.”

Lalit Kumar Dash, a Judicial Officer in the rank of District Judge, joined as the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on 13.01.2020, after serving a brief stint as the Registrar (Vigilance). While serving as such, he was handling a file relating to service and promotion of certain High Court employees which is governed under the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019.

On 14.02.2021, he was relieved from the said position and was posted as the Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal. On 17.04.2021, his successor in the post of Registrar (Judicial) submitted a report alleging the missing of two pages from the file relating to the aforesaid promotion matter. As an upshot, an explanation was called for from the petitioner. Though he submitted his explanation, the same was held unsatisfactory.

The statements of a Senior Grade Typist attached to the office of the Registrar (Judicial) was recorded wherein he stated that certain correspondence pages had been separated and handed over to the petitioner during 2020. Therefore, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, administrative indiscipline and failure to maintain integrity and honesty.

Upon conclusion of the Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report holding all charges proved against the petitioner, primarily on the grounds that he remained silent regarding the alleged missing documents and had improperly suggested invocation of Rule 38(10) of the 2019 Rules to the then Acting Chief Justice (ACJ). Based upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment upon the petitioner under Rule 13(vi-A) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 by directing withholding of two increments cumulatively.

Basing upon the aforesaid facts, the Court formulated primarily two issues for adjudication. Firstly, whether the findings regarding missing documents and administrative indiscipline are sustainable; and secondly, whether the petitioner committed misconduct by placing notes before the ACJ suggesting exercise of Rule 38(10).

So far as the first allegation was concerned, the Court found that the said administrative file remained in circulation before the then Chief Justice and members of Special Committee constituted to resolve the issues relating to the said promotion. It was found that the file remained in circulation beyond the tenure of the petitioner.

The Court also found that the Enquiry Officer proceeded on a faulty stance of law by shifting burden of innocence upon the petitioner, rather than keeping the burden of proof of indiscipline upon the department. It also underlined that the Enquiry Officer erred in presuming that the petitioner has admitted the documents to be missing, whereas he specifically asserted that the file may have remained with the Special Committee after having been placed before the Chief Justice. Thus, it held that–

“This Court is therefore constrained to hold that the findings on Charges relating to administrative indiscipline, misconduct and failure to maintain integrity on account of alleged missing documents are vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence, reliance on presumptions, and shifting of burden of proof. Hence, it's a case of no evidence.”

With regard to the second allegation concerning wrongful suggestion to the ACJ for invoking extraordinary power under Rule 38(10) to give promotion to ineligible employees, the Bench was of the considered view that the petitioner merely placed a note before the ACJ as per her directions, rather than engineering or imposing his suggestion to exercise the power under the aforesaid rule.

“The disciplinary proceeding does not disclose any material demonstrating mala-fide intention, personal gain, corrupt motive, or extraneous consideration on the part of the petitioner. Merely because certain promotion decisions subsequently became controversial or were reconsidered cannot automatically render the officer processing the file guilty of misconduct,” it added.

This Court further noted that the enquiry officer repeatedly employed expressions such as “cavalier attitude”, “shifting of blame”, and “brazen attempt to suppress truth”, without correlating such observations to any substantive evidence on record. Disapproving employment of such terms, it held–

“Departmental findings affecting reputation and integrity of a senior judicial officer cannot rest on rhetorical inferences or moral impressions. Findings in disciplinary proceedings must be founded upon objective materials capable of establishing misconduct on the touchstone of probabilities. In the present case, even such threshold is not satisfied. The evidence led by the department does not establish that the petitioner acted independently, manipulated records, fabricated recommendations, suppressed any statutory provision, or derived any advantage from the disputed promotions.”

As a corollary, the enquiry report as well as the order of punishment were set aside. A clear direction was made to confer all consequential service benefits upon the petitioner at the earliest, considering the officer's upcoming retirement in July, 2026.

Case Title: Lalit Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 9958 of 2024

Date of Judgment: May 27, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Rao, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate; Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Empanelled Counsel

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 54