Superior Authorities Should Ordinarily Refrain From Passing Derogatory Remarks Against Judicial Officers: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently called upon superior judicial authorities to desist from passing strictures, derogatory remarks or scathing criticism against judicial officers without affording an opportunity of hearing to them.

The Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, while quashing an adverse entry from the Confidential Character Roll (CCR) of a former Registrar General of the High Court, made the following observations –

“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 (the petitioner), a judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge (Super-time Scale), was posted as the Registrar General of the High Court on June 05, 2020. While working as such, on February 26, 2021, he received an order passed by one Division Bench dated February 24, 2021, along with an official note-sheet from the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) ['the DR (J)'].

Through the note-sheet, the DR (J) requested the petitioner to approve the same in order to give effect to the direction passed by the Division Bench, which had asked the Registry to supply the copy of its order along with brief to certain Senior Advocates, appointed as Amicus Curiae in that case, by February 26, 2021. Such direction could not have been complied with in the letter and spirit without registering a suo moto writ petition.

In order to comply with the direction, the petitioner being the Registrar General promptly endorsed the note-sheet and registered a suo moto case. However, the then Chief Justice allegedly expressed displeasure over the manner in which the petitioner proceeded on to register the suo moto case without obtaining his approval or at least, bringing the matter to his notice.

A departmental proceeding (DP) was initiated against him on the grounds of gross misconduct, dereliction in duty and administrative indiscipline while dealing with judicial records, and failure maintain absolute honesty and integrity. Subsequently, an Inquiry Committee was constituted to conduct inquiry on the charges levelled against him.

The Inquiry Committee found him guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and administrative indiscipline while dealing with judicial records, but he was exonerated from the charge of failure to maintain absolute integrity and honesty. He was penalised with the punishment of reduction to the lower grade in the pay, i.e. 'Selection Grade'.

It was also directed that the pay of the petitioner would be fixed at the initial scale of the Selection Grade, and his upgradation to the next higher grade of Super-time Scale would be considered only after five years.

On October 15, 2022, he received a confidential letter from the High Court whereby he was intimated about some adverse remarks recorded in his CCR. In the CCR, though the Chief Justice gave 'good' remarks in almost every respect, but his integrity was remarked to be 'doubtful' and his overall grading was given 'average'.

Subsequently, he filed a representation seeking to expunge the adverse remarks against him and also to upgrade the CCR grading to any higher grade. However, the representation was rejected by the Court without assigning any reason, and the said fact was communicated to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, he challenged such adverse entries by filing this writ petition.

Role of Administrative Judge/Judge-in-charge in assessing integrity

The petitioner specifically contended that the Chief Justice did not adhere to the procedure prescribed under the General Rules and Circular Orders (GRCO) (Civil), Vol-II which deals with recording of CCR of Judicial Officers. The Court, therefore, perused the relevant note/instruction provided under the GRCO which is required to be followed by the Administrative Judge/Judge-in-charge whiling filling the 'integrity' column of a Judicial Officer.

As per the guidelines, the Court held, the maintenance of 'secret records' by the Judge-in-charge of the district making a note as to the fact and circumstance which comes to his knowledge touching the integrity of the concerned Judicial Officer is necessary. The said secret record shall indicate whether the information reveals a definite fact susceptible of formal proof, or a mere vague allegation not susceptible of formal proof.

“Where any adverse report regarding the reputation of a Judicial Officer touching his integrity or honesty is received, the Judge-in-charge should keep a general watch over the standard of living of the concerned Judicial Officer. In case there is evidence that the concerned Judicial Officer lives beyond his means for which there is no apparent satisfactory explanation and evidence is forthcoming, he should be asked by the Judge in-charge to explain how he is in a position to do so. Unless the Judge-in-charge is satisfied with the explanation, he should report the question of integrity to the concerned authority.”

It further made clear that the Judge-in-charge of the district shall briefly indicate the source and gist of information and reason behind his opinion of the Judicial Officer having evil reputation. If as a result of follow-up action, doubt or suspicion is neither cleared nor confirmed, the conduct of the Judicial Officer shall be watched for a period of six months and thereafter action be taken.

Then question cropped up as to whether the aforesaid guideline is mandatory or merely directory. Placing reliance upon a catena of judicial pronouncements, the Court opined –

“…the legislative intent in framing such guidelines to give remark on integrity of a Judicial Officer which is the bedrock of the judicial institution essential for compliance with democracy and the Rule of law, the consequence that is likely to follow if the prescribed formalities of guidelines are not followed while mentioning “doubtful integrity‟ in the C.C.R. in a casual or mechanical manner, in our humble view, such guidelines are to be considered in the nature of a condition precedent in filling up the column relating to integrity and thus mandatory.”

In order to ascertain whether the Chief Justice had in fact followed the GRCO guidelines before recording his opinion in the CCR of the petitioner, the Court asked the Special Officer (Administration) of the High Court to file an affidavit specifically stating therein as to whether such guidelines have been followed and if so, all the relevant documents to that effect be placed along with the affidavit.

Though the Officer filed the affidavit, he did not specifically state as to whether the guidelines have been followed or not. Nor did he place the relevant documents to that effect along with the affidavit. Thus, the Court was of the view that the Chief Justice/Judge-in-charge did not follow the relevant guidelines.

“We are further of the view that since the guidelines are required to be followed and it is mandatory, Hon'ble the Chief Justice or the Judge-in-charge of the district could not have made the adverse entry in the column relating to integrity without following such guidelines,” it added.

'Unreasoned' rejection of representation

Justice Sahoo, who authored the judgment, noted that after receiving the intimation regarding the adverse remarks, the petitioner filed a representation. However, the same was rejected without assigning any reason whatsoever.

“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 and considered in a fair decision-making process. Principle of fairness has an important place in the law of judicial review. Once reasons would have been assigned, the petitioner could have known as to why his representation was rejected,” he observed.

The Bench cited Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Saran Versheny & Ors. (2009) wherein it was held that while considering the representation for expunction of adverse remark, reasons should be assigned. The reasons may not be elaborate but brief reasons should be assigned for rejecting the representation. Thus, it found the unreasoned rejection of representation of the petitioner to be unsustainable in the eyes of law.

“No one becomes dishonest all of a sudden”

Senior Advocate Asok Mohanty appearing for the petitioner highlighted the previous as well as subsequent CCR records of the petitioner, which were mostly found to be 'very good' or 'outstanding'. Notably, the CCR entry for the relevant period also showed that the Chief Justice found the petitioner's knowledge and abilities to be good but remarked his integrity to be 'doubtful'.

Reliance was placed upon observations made by the Supreme Court in M.S. Bindra v. Union of India & Ors. (1998) which categorically held that while evaluating the materials, the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently.

It underlined the maxim “nemo firut repente turpissimus” (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) to be not unexceptional but still a salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of administrative law. The authorities, it held, should not keep their eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier.

Therefore, the Court was of the view that the authorities should not remain oblivious nor turn a blind eye towards the past records of the officer concerned.

“The stand taken in the counter affidavit by the opposite parties that merely because an officer was good in past, he is good for all times to come, is not acceptable and that the past conduct of an officer is no guarantee that he would not commit any misconduct and from such angle, the past reputation and assessments were of no concern for the present or future grading/assessment, cannot be legally accepted,” it held.

Accordingly, the adverse entry made in the CCR of the petitioner was set aside and quashed. Pertinently, in a related matter, the Court also set aside all the disciplinary actions taken against the petitioner.

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 71

Click Here To Read/Download Order