Back
Lalit Kumar Dash's Adverse Service Record Reconsidered After Quashes Disciplinary Proceeding
Orders Fresh Look at Judicial Officer's Negative CCR Entry After Foundation of Charges Collapses
In a significant ruling on , a Division Bench of the has paved the way for expunging from the of a judicial officer after the disciplinary proceedings that prompted those remarks were quashed. The court directed the Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice for reconsideration, holding that the "basis" for the negative entry had been "washed away."
42 Days That Sealed a Record
The petitioner, Lalit Kumar Dash , a 1997 batch Odisha Judicial Service officer, was posted as Registrar (Judicial) of the on . During his tenure, he faced a disciplinary proceeding for allegedly misplacing pages of an administrative file and misleading the then Acting Chief Justice on a staff promotion matter.
He was transferred to Dhenkanal on , and later to Kalahandi on . When his CCR for the year 2021 was opened, Dash discovered he had been graded "average" with a specific entry describing him as "not trustworthy." Crucially, he had served merely 42 days under the then Chief Justice, who had taken charge on . No CCR was recorded for his Dhenkanal tenure, and his work at Kalahandi was found "good" by the Administrative Judge.
Dash's representations to expunge the were not acted upon, leading him to file a .
"": Court's Pivotal Observation
The Division Bench of
Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak
and
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
examined the chronology. The adverse entry in Dash's CCR was explicitly based on the serious charges leveled against him in the disciplinary inquiry.
"All the relevant papers pertaining to the departmental proceeding were made available to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice for consideration,"
the court noted.
"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."
However, the game-changer came earlier this year when the High Court, in a separate proceeding, quashed the disciplinary proceeding and the consequent imposed on Dash. This, the Bench held, fundamentally altered the landscape.
"In view of the specific findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated , 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."
The court also found merit in Dash's argument that under , a CCR can be recorded only after a minimum of four months of service under the assessing officer. The petitioner served only 42 days. The Bench drew support from the ruling in Malaya Ranjan Dash v. Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack & Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 71) on this point.
When Lose Their Foundation
The court was careful to note that the then Chief Justice acted reasonably given the materials available. But the subsequent annulment of the disciplinary proceeding meant the factual foundation for the adverse entry no longer existed.
"Having regard to the changing circumstances,"
the Bench concluded, the representations made by Dash on
, and
, deserved a fresh look.
A Second Chance at Justice
The court allowed the and directed the Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice of the for reconsideration. The Chief Justice will decide whether the matter should be placed before the for a formal decision to expunge the from Dash's CCR for the year 2021.
The ruling reinforces a critical principle in service law: when the disciplinary charges that form the sole basis for a negative service entry are quashed, the entry itself must be revisited. It also highlights the importance of adherence to minimum assessment periods for CCR recording.
(Counsel for the Petitioner: assisted by . Counsel for the Opposite Parties: for the State; assisted by .)
