IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2618 of 2022 Dr. Suvendu Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Nath Sharma, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 19.01.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead Joint Secretary to Govt., G.A. and P.G. Department, BBSR as Opp. Party No.5 in Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) quash the Orders, dated 27.02.2020 and 26.02.2019 as at Annexures-6 and 3 and thereby set- aside / expunge the adverse remarks made in the PAR of the Petitioner, dated 30.05.2018 as at Annexure-1, and thereby direct the Opp. Parties to extent all consequential financial and service benefits in favour of the Petitioner, within a stipulated period as may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court for the interest of justice; (ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.” 5. It is contended that against an adverse CCR communicated under Annexure-1 on 30.05.2018, petitioner made his representation before the self-same authority under Annexure-2. When the authority concerned refused to expunge the adverse CCR vide communication dated 26.02.2019 under Annexure-3, petitioner moved the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.1, by filing an appeal under Annexure-4. 5.1. It is contended that such an appeal when was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25639 of 2019. This Court vide order under Annexure-5, directed Opp. Party No.1 to consider the representation/appeal filed by the petitioner under Annexure-4. 5.2. It is however contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court under Annexure-5, the authority who had initially communicated the adverse CCR under Annexure-1, again took up the issue and rejected the appeal vide the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 under Annexure-6. 5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since after rejection of his representation by the concerned authority, petitioner moved an appeal before Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-4 and this Court directed for its consideration, Opp. Party No.1 should have dealt with the issue, instead of the original authority, who had communicated the adverse CCR under Annexure-1. 5.4. It is accordingly contended that, since the impugned order under Annexure-6 has been passed by an authority who had communicated the adverse CCR under Annexure-1 and the same being contrary to the direction issued by this Court in its order under Annexure-5, is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 6. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed justifying the rejection, but it is fairly admitted that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No.1 should have dealt with the issue instead of Opp. Party No.5. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that against the adverse CCR communicated by Opp. Party No.6 under Annexure-1, petitioner filed his representation under Annexure-2. The said authority when refused to expunge adverse CCR vide Annexure- 3, petitioner moved a representation/appeal before the Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-4. As the same was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25639 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 19.01.2019 under Annexure-5, directed for its consideration by Opp. Party No.1 but on the face of such order passed by this Court under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No.5 again took up the issue and rejected the application vide order dated 27.02.2020 under Annexure-6. 7.1. Since this Court in its order under Annexure-5, had directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on Annexure-4, it is the view of this Court that Opp. Party No.5 could not have taken up the issue with passing of the order under Annexure-6. 7.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 so issued under Annexure-6, remit the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on Annexure-4 in the light of the order passed by this Court under Annexure-5 within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev