'Basis Washed Away': Orissa High Court Directs Reconsideration Of Judge's Adverse Service Record

The Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra found a strong case in favour of the senior judicial officer, especially due to subsequent annulment of the disciplinary proceeding, and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for his assessment as to if the officer's representations need to be reconsidered by the Full Court. The Bench further observed –

“In view of the specific findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 27.05.2026, the materials placed before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, which had persuaded him to make the adverse entry in the CCR of the petitioner, have subsequently failed to withstand the scrutiny of law. Consequently, the adverse materials which constituted the basis for recording the adverse entry in the petitioner's CCR having failed to withstand the scrutiny of law are washed away.”

Lalit Kumar Dash, a Judicial Officer of the 1997 batch of the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS), was posted as the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on 13.01.2020. While working as such, he faced a disciplinary proceeding for allegedly misplacing certain pages of an administrative file and purportedly misguiding the then Acting Chief Justice on a matter relating to High Court staff promotion.

He was subsequently transferred as the Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal on 14.02.2021, where he served till 26.07.2021. Thereafter, he was posted as the Judge, Family Court, Kalahandi with effect from 30.07.2021. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging adverse entries made in his CCR for the year 2021, whereby he was graded as “average” and a specific entry was recorded describing him as “not trustworthy”.

It was submitted that he served in three different positions in the year 2021. He worked merely for 42 days as Registrar (Judicial) in the High Court under the direct administrative supervision of the then Chief Justice, who took over as such only on 04.01.2021. Further, no CCR was recorded for his term at Dhenkanal and he was found “good” by the Administrative/Portfolio Judge for his term at Kalahandi.

Therefore, it was his specific contention that he was graded as “average” for the year 2021 solely because of the remarks made by the then Chief Justice. It was his further argument that as per Clause-5(a) of General Rules and Circular Orders (GRCO) (Civil) Vol. II, CCR can be recorded by superior authority/Administrative Judge for an officer who has served minimum four months under them. However, the then Chief Justice made adverse remarks in his CCR after adjudging his work for merely 42 days.

Moreover, it was submitted that the negative entries were made basing upon the serious charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceeding. However, the finding of guilt and major penalty imposed upon him were quashed by the High Court earlier this year in a separate writ petition. Thus, it was vehemently argued that when he has already been found not guilty in the disciplinary proceeding, the adverse remarks basing upon such proceeding must be expunged.

The Division Bench, speaking through Justice Mishra, found merit in the argument that CCR can be recorded after assessing an officer for minimum four months. For this purpose, it found support from the judgment of a coordinate Bench in Malaya Ranjan Dash v. Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 71.

It noted that the then Chief Justice recorded the adverse remarks against the petitioner after considering relevant materials, including the serious charges levelled against him in the disciplinary inquiry. It further observed–

“All the relevant papers pertaining to the departmental proceeding were made available to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice for consideration. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding, were undoubtedly serious in nature. Therefore, no fault can be found with the assessment made by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, having regard to the materials available before him at the relevant point of time. The said materials appears[sic] to have reasonably persuaded the then Hon'ble Chief Justice to make the entries in the petitioner's CCR.”

Nevertheless, as the disciplinary proceeding as well as the consequent penalty were quashed by the Court earlier this year, the Bench was of the view that there is a need to re-examine the representations made by the petitioners imploring to expunge the negative remarks. Accordingly, it ordered –

“In view of the foregoing and having regard to the changing circumstances, we are of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, it would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the Registrar General of this Court to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for reconsideration of the representation dated 02.12.2022 and 17.08.2023 for taking decision as to whether the matter ought to be placed before the Full Court for expunging the adverse remark recorded in the CCR of the petitioner for the relevant period.”

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Rao, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anish Ankur Mishra, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Debraj Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State; Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Empanelled Counsel for the Registrar General & Special Officer (Administration)