Quashing underlying disciplinary proceedings warrants reconsideration of adverse CCR remarks founded on those proceedings.

The petitioner, a Judicial Officer of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service, challenged adverse entries in his Confidential Character Roll (“CCR”) and the overall grading of “Average” for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021.

During the relevant year, the petitioner served under three different arrangements. He functioned as Registrar (Judicial) under the then Chief Justice from 4 January 2021 until 14 February 2021, approximately 42 days; served as ADJ-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal, from 17 February to 26 July 2021, for which no CCR entry was recorded; and thereafter served in Kalahandi from 30 July to 31 December 2021, where the Administrative Judge graded his performance “Good”.

The adverse assessment was placed before the Full Court, which resolved on 23 August 2022 to grade the petitioner “Average” for the entire year 2021.

Subsequently, however, the departmental proceeding and punishment were quashed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.9958 of 2024 by judgment dated 27 May 2026.

Whether the adverse remarks and “Average” grading recorded in the petitioner’s CCR for the year 2021 constituted a true and proper assessment of his performance, ability, potential, knowledge and integrity.

Whether the adverse CCR entry and grading were amenable to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Clause 5(a) of the Notes on Procedure for recording Annual CCRs under the GRCO (Civil), Vol. II provides that the Reporting Authority or District Judge under whom a Judicial Officer works for more than four months must record the officer’s CCR.

The Court relied on Malaya Ranjan Dash v. Registrar General, High Court of Orissa, W.P.(C) No.28873 of 2023, judgment dated 2 May 2025, for the principle that the four-month requirement serves to ensure a meaningful assessment of the officer’s overall performance.

The Court further applied the principle that judicial review of CCR assessments by a constitutional authority is limited and that the Court cannot substitute its own assessment unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, irrational, perverse or otherwise shocking to the conscience.

This principle was supported by Registrar General, High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad, (2012) 6 SCC 357, which recognises that assessments by a Standing Committee or Full Court ordinarily warrant deference and are reviewable only in exceptional circumstances.

At the same time, an assessment must rest on relevant and legally sustainable material; where the foundational material has subsequently been quashed by a competent court, the adverse assessment requires reconsideration.

The Court acknowledged that the adverse assessment had been made on the basis of materials available to the then Chief Justice, including the allegations and departmental proceedings, and therefore did not find fault with the decision-making authority’s assessment as it stood at that time.

However, the petitioner had worked under the concerned Chief Justice for only about 42 days, while the applicable procedure contemplated a period exceeding four months for recording a CCR, and his subsequent assessment in Kalahandi was “Good”.

More importantly, the departmental proceeding and punishment that had materially influenced the adverse assessment were subsequently quashed by the High Court. Consequently, the factual foundation underlying the adverse CCR remarks no longer survived in law.

The Court therefore did not substitute its own evaluation for that of the Full Court, but held that the changed circumstances required reconsideration of the petitioner’s representations in light of the judgment quashing the disciplinary action.

The Court directed the Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice for reconsideration of the petitioner’s representations dated 2 December 2022 and 17 August 2023, and for a decision on whether the matter should be placed before the Full Court for expunging the adverse CCR remarks for 2021.

The exercise was directed to be completed within one month.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, without the Court itself directly expunging the adverse entries.