Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Kartik Prasad Jena – Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and Ors. – Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.10034 of 2021
Decided On : 27-05-2022
Adverse Remark - Promotion Denial - GA & PG Department - 2018-19 - The petitioner challenges the adverse remark and denial of promotion, seeking its expunction and promotion to the rank of Professor. The adverse remark communicated in 2020 for the period 2018-19 lacked specific substantiation and was communicated with inordinate delay. The court found the adverse remark to be without basis and directed its quashing, ordering reconsideration of the petitioner's promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges an adverse remark communicated in 2020 for the period 2018-19, seeking its expunction and promotion to the rank of Professor. The petitioner had an unblemished track record and had served in various positions without any adverse remark. The adverse remark was communicated without specific substantiation and with inordinate delay. The petitioner's promotion was denied based on this adverse remark.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the adverse remark to be without basis and prima facie did not indicate any specific omission and commission. The substantiation report failed to justify the adverse remark. The court directed the quashing of the adverse remark and ordered the reconsideration of the petitioner's promotion, ignoring the adverse remark.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the adverse remark, the denial of promotion based on the adverse remark, and the inordinate delay in communicating the adverse remark to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the adverse remark lacked specific substantiation, was communicated with inordinate delay, and prima facie did not indicate any specific omission and commission. The court emphasized the need for fair assessment without prejudice and the communication of adverse remarks within a reasonable period. The court's decision was guided by previous judgments emphasizing the importance of fair assessment and communication of adverse remarks.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the adverse CCR, and directed the reconsideration of the petitioner's promotion, ignoring the adverse remark. The Opposite Parties were directed to reconsider the petitioner's promotion within two months.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition assails the illegal adverse remark communicated to him so also the arbitrary rejection of his representation for expunction of such adverse remark sans any specific substantiation. He also seeks direction from the Court to the Opposite Parties to extend all benefits to the petitioner including his promotion to the rank of Professor grade which was illegally denied to him on account of the said demoralising adverse remark against him. He further prays for quashing the adverse remark dated 07.10.2020/Annexure-2 and the rejections of representations dated 29.12.2020/ Annexure -6 & dated 26.02.202/Annexure-9.
I. Factual back ground :
2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer-in Economics and later promoted to further ranks in the hierarchy. He has completed three decades of service with unblemished track record without any adverse remark in his entire service career. The petitioner served as the Deputy Director (NGO-II) in the Directorate of Higher Education from 03.01.2018 to 08.07.2019and on transfer he is serving as Associate Professor & HOD in Economics at SCS College, Puri since 09.07.2019.
3. In compliance with the guidelines issued by the GA & PG Department in the matter of writing and maintenance of CCRS, the petitioner submitted his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) indicating therein brief description of duties entrusted to him, physical/ financial targets and achievements and significant work done by him during the period from 19.09.2018 to 31.03.2019 through Online to his reporting authority i.e. Director of Higher Education, Orissa within scheduled date on 26.4.2019( Annexure 1).
4. After about one year and three months of his joining at SCS College, Puri, the petitioner received a confidential letter from the GA & PG (SE) Department, Government of Orissa bearing D.O. No.2192/SE dated 07.10.2020 wherein he was communicated with the adverse remarks in his PAR during his incumbency as Deputy Director(NGO-II) in the Directorate of Higher Education, which reads as follows :
5. On receipt of the D.O. letter dated 07.10.2020 issued by the GA & PG (SE) Department, Government of Orissa, the petitioner had made a representation dated 26.11.2020 to the said authority against the adverse remarks in his PAR. He narrated all the genuine grounds with supporting documents for expunction of adverse remark in his PAR, but his representation has been rejected with a cryptic order with the observation that there is no adequate ground for expunction or modification of the adverse remarks and communicated to the petitioner.
6. Being aggrieved by the adverse remark, the petitioner felt it appropriate to make a detailed representation before the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha, pointing out his grievances and submitted the same on 08.02.2021. Since the petitioner is on the verge of his promotion such an attempt by his reporting officer and administrative department is likely to prejudicially impact his promotion prospect. However, he was disappointed by the Opp. Party No.3 vide a letter bearing No.382 dated 26.02.2021 intimating the fate of the Representation dated 08.02.2021 rejecting the same treating it as second representation in terms of Para-14(ii) of the PAR guideline issued vide Memo No.1199/ PRO, dated 26.02.2021. (Annexure-9). Challenging such communication of adverse CCR as well as the illegal rejection of his representations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
II. Submissions of the Petitioner:
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adverse remark was given but there was no reasons assigned for delayed communication of such remark by the authority. In fact, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
