The Orissa High Court recently issued an important reminder to superior judicial authorities: refrain from passing harsh or derogatory remarks about judicial officers without giving them a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The court's Division Bench, consisting of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, made this clear while quashing an adverse entry in the Confidential Character Roll (CCR) of a former Registrar General of the High Court.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Cancels Death Sentence Over Unfair Trial In Minor's Rape-Murder Case, Orders Fresh Trial
In its judgment, the Court observed, "The Superior Authority should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures, derogatory remarks, and scathing criticism. Passing of such remarks/comments without affording a hearing to the subordinate officer is clearly violative of the principle of natural justice and thus, we are of the view that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner."
Case Background
Malaya Ranjan Dash, a judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge (Super-time Scale), served as the Registrar General of the Orissa High Court. In February 2021, the petitioner was asked to implement an order from the Division Bench, which required the Registry to provide documents to certain Senior Advocates by a specific date. In order to comply, Dash registered a suo moto case. However, this step drew displeasure from the then Chief Justice for not obtaining prior approval.
As a result, a departmental inquiry was initiated against Dash, accusing him of misconduct and dereliction of duty. Though he was exonerated of some charges, the inquiry led to adverse remarks in his CCR, stating that his integrity was 'doubtful' and his overall grading was 'average.'
The petitioner challenged the adverse remarks, citing that the Chief Justice did not follow the prescribed procedure for assessing a judicial officer’s integrity. The Court, after reviewing relevant guidelines, found that the process had not been properly followed. According to the Court, the guidelines under the General Rules and Circular Orders (GRCO) are mandatory and cannot be ignored.
“The legislative intent in framing such guidelines to give remark on integrity of a Judicial Officer… such guidelines are to be considered in the nature of a condition precedent in filling up the column relating to integrity and thus mandatory,” stated the Court.
After receiving adverse remarks, Dash filed a representation requesting the expunging of these remarks. However, his appeal was rejected without any explanation. The Court emphasized that a representation must be dealt with fairly, and reasons should be provided for its rejection.
“Without assigning any reasons in Annexure-10, the petitioner was kept in darkness. The petitioner had legitimate expectation that his representation would be given due weightage,” said Justice Sahoo.
After reviewing the case, the Court quashed the adverse entry in Dash's CCR, noting that the Chief Justice had failed to adhere to the guidelines for assessing integrity. Furthermore, the Court set aside all disciplinary actions taken against Dash, emphasizing the importance of fairness in administrative matters.
Case Title: Malaya Ranjan Dash v. Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 28873 of 2023
Date of Judgment: May 02, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Asok Mohanty & Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General along with Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel
