IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.24669 of 2024 Avilash Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. S.R. Singhsamanta, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr.P.P. Behera, ASC COROM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 05.03.2026 6. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the Petitioner’s grievance to expunge the adverse CCR for the period 03.08.2019 to 31.03.2020, 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 to 31.07.2021. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that such adverse CCR was never communicated to the Petitioner at any point of time. But basing on such adverse CCRs, Petitioner when was not extended with the benefit of promotion, he obtained the same through RTI and made a grievance on 22.07.2024 with a prayer to expunge those adverse CCRs under Annexure-9. It is contended that even though a detailed representation was filed under Annexure-9, but without assigning any reason, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.30.07.2024 under Annexure-1. It is contended that since no reason has been assigned while rejecting the Petitioner’s representation under Annexure-9, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.1. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relied on the decisions in the case of 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and 2012(1) OLR-87. 4.2. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:- “8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusion are based. xxx xxx xxx 10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 510]”. 4.3. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:- “13. After giving our anxious hearing to the matter and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we are constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the Petitioner”. 5. Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that since after due consideration of the grievance petition so made by the Petitioner under Annexure-9, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-1, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. It is also contended that Petitioner instead of making a single representation against the adverse CCRs for 3(three) different periods under Annexure-9, should have made separate representations for expunging the CCRs. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that against the adverse CCRs for three different periods, Petitioner when made a grievance under Annexure-9 and with a request to expunge the same, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.30.07.2024 under Annexure-1. 6.1. This Court after going through the impugned order finds that no reason whatsoever has been assigned while rejecting the grievance made by the Petitioner with regard to expunging the adverse CCR. However, it is the view of this Court that since adverse CCR relates to three (3) different period, Petitioner instead of making a single representation under Anenxure-9, should have made 3(three) representations for the period involved. 6.2. Therefore, placing reliance on the decisions so cited above, this Court while quashing the impugned order dt.30.07.2024 under Annexure-1 on the ground of having no reason, permits the Petitioner to file three (3) separate representations against the adverse CCRs for the period involved, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such filing of the representations, Opp. party No.1 shall take a lawful decision on the same and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of such representations. Petitioner is permitted to take all the grounds that is available under law while filing his representations against the adverse CCRs. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita