SAILENDRA KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition involves the following relief :-

(2.) Short background involving the case is that initially Original Application No.1615 of 2018 was filed being aggrieved by the order of rejection of the representation of the Petitioner on being issued with alleged illegal adverse remark in his PAR thereby depriving the Petitioner from the next promotion. Facts reveal, the Petitioner challenged the adverse remark communicated to him by way of representation on 23/2/2018 for expunction of such adverse remark recorded in his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the year 201617 (1/4/2016 to 31/3/2017). Upon receipt of such representation, it appears, for the nature of grievance, following the Guidelines for Recording and Maintenance of PARs of Group-A Officers of the Government, particularly keeping in view the provision at Clause-15(i) therein, the representation of the Petitioner was sent to the Author of the adverse remark asking him to substantiate or furnish his comment on the representation. It is on receipt of such representation, the Author of the adverse remark involved here on 28/3/2018 intimated his confirmation/Substantiation Report on the adverse remark, vide Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Based on such report of the Author of the adverse remark, it appears, the representation of the Petitioner has been rejected resulting in filing of the Original Application. Subsequently on transfer of the same to this Court, this has been registered as WPC(OA).

(3.) Taking this Court to the plea involving the Writ Petition involved, the provision at Clauses-15(i) and (ii) of the Guidelines, further reading the contents in the document at Annexure-D available at Page-58 of the counter affidavit of the contesting Opposite Parties, Sri D.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that once the provision makes it clear that the Substantiation Report should cover specific facts, figures and instances, which are relevant to the preparation of adverse remark involved here, it was incumbent on the part of the Author of the adverse remark involved herein to give his report strictly in terms of Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause-15, failing which such report is to be simply ignored. Taking this Court to the contents, again Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel, submitted that since the Author's submission remained contrary to Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause-15 of the Guidelines, the same should be interfered with and set aside.