Superior Authority Must Ordinarily Refrain From Passing Strictures Against Judicial Officers: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court observed that the Superior Authority should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures and derogatory remarks against the Judicial Officers.

The Court observed thus in a Writ Petition filed by a Judicial Officer, challenging the adverse remarks in the Confidential Character Roll (CCR) along with CCR Grading as ‘average’.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice S.S. Mishra remarked, “Prior to the recording of such adverse C.C.R., the petitioner was not granted opportunity in writing or by informing him of the deficiency, if any, noticed for improvement. 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.”

The Bench emphasised that judiciary is an institution whose foundations are based on honesty, integrity and public trust and integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline.

Senior Advocates Asok Mohanty and Prafulla Kumar Rath appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Advocate General (AG) Pitambar Acharya and Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Aurobinda Mohanty appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was an officer in the rank of Orissa Superior Judicial Service who sought to quash the adverse entry made in his CCR which was communicated to him vide a letter in 2022, rejecting his prayer to expunge the adverse remark in his CCR. The Petitioner was selected in the written test for the post of District Judge directly from the Bar in 2010 and became topper among four candidates selected for the said post through direct recruitment from the Bar in that year. As per the Petitioner’s case, during his entire service career, he had remained sincere, committed to his work and had performed his job to the utmost satisfaction of higher authorities and till initiation of disciplinary proceeding, he had never received any adverse comment/remark from the High Court.

After completion of 5 years as District Judge, he was granted Selection Grade Scale of pay with effect from December 15, 2015 and on satisfactory performance in the said cadre, he was further granted Super Time Scale of pay. However, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and two other officers on the charges of committing (a) Gross misconduct (b) Dereliction in duty (c) Administrative indiscipline while dealing with judicial records and (d) Failure to maintain absolute integrity and honesty, under Rule 3 of the Odisha Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959 on the allegation/imputations that while working as Registrar General, High Court of Orissa, without making the Chief Justice informed, he approved a note sheet of the then Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and thereby instructed for registration of a Suo Motu proceeding on the basis of an unsigned order. Being aggrieved by the adverse remarks made against him in CCR, he approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “Dispensation of justice is akin to discharge of a pious duty. A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. Judicial service cannot afford to suffer in the hands of a person of doubtful integrity. A Judge must be a person of high standards, impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence, honest to the core with high moral values, must adhere to a higher standard of probity and ethically firm. Judicial conduct must not be beyond the pale.”

The Court added that a slightest dishonesty, whether it is monetary, intellectual or institutional by a Judicial Officer may have disastrous effect.

“Democracy to thrive and the Rule of law to survive require every Judge to discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty”, it noted.

The Court further observed that 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.

“We are of the view that the authorities 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”, it also said.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the adverse entry made in the CCR of the Petitioner which was communicated to him vide a letter as well as the letter rejecting his prayer to expunge the adverse remark in his CCR cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the adverse remarks.

Cause Title- Malaya Ranjan Dash v. Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack and others (Case Number: W.P.(C) No.28873 of 2023)

Click here to read/download the Judgment