Disposed¶9

Ramesh Chandra Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Apr 2026WP(C)/1330/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adverse CCR; OCR adverse remarks expungement; delayed representation against confidential character roll rejected on limitation ground; Orissa High Court held such representation must be considered on merit notwithstanding delay; Annexure-8 rejection quashed; authority to reconsider representation within four months; police service promotion to Inspector of Police; Writ Petition disposed of; W.P.(C) No.1330 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-8 rejection orders quashed; Opp. Party No.2 directed to consider the Petitioner's representation against the adverse CCR (Annexure-6 series) in accordance with law within four (4) months from receipt of the order, with due communication to the Petitioner. ¶9

Ramesh Chandra Jena Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether Opp. Party No.2 was justified in refusing to consider the Petitioner's representation against the adverse CCR solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. +1 more

¶6.1

Court's answer

Though it was not disputed that the Petitioner's representation against the adverse CCR was submitted beyond the period of limitation, since the Petitioner is affected by the adverse CCR, Opp. Party No.2 should have considered the representation on merit instead of rejecting it on the ground of delay.

¶8.1

Ratio / Principle

The orders issued under Annexure-8 series (rejection of the representation dated 24.12.2025) are quashed.

¶8.2

Key takeaways

Opp. Party No.2 is directed to consider the representation made by the Petitioner against the adverse CCR under Annexure-6 series in accordance with law within four (4) months from receipt of the order, with due communication to the Petitioner.ratio¶8.2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.) disposed of W.P.(C) No.1330 of 2026, Ramesh Chandra Jena v. State of Odisha and Others, on 06.04.2026 at the admission stage with consent of counsel. The Petitioner, aggrieved by adverse CCR entries communicated on 13.09.2021 and 29.11.2022 (Annexure-6 series), had prayed for expungement of adverse OCR remarks for 01.04.2020-31.03.2021 and 15.08.2021-03.12.2021 and consideration for promotion to Inspector of Police. His representation filed on 15.09.2025 (Annexure-7 series) was rejected on 24.12.2025 (Annexure-8 series) as beyond the period of limitation. Holding that a representation of an officer affected by adverse CCR should be considered on merit even if time-barred, the Court quashed the Annexure-8 orders and directed Opp. Party No.2 to consider the representation in accordance with law within four (4) months of receipt of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1330 of 2026

¶3

Ramesh Chandra Jena …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S. Jena, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA

¶7

COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No

06.04.2026

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

3. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed but on the consent of the leaned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter was heard at the stage of admission and disposed of by the present order.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issue involved in the case present is covered by an order passed by this Court on 20.01.2026 in W.P.(C) No.1859 of 2026.

¶15

5. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-

¶16

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶17

i) Admit the Writ Petition;

¶18

ii) Call for the records;

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ/writs by quashing the impugned rejection order passed by the 0pp. Party No.2 dated 24.12.2025 under Annexure-8 Series and to declare the same illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law governing the field.

¶21

iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, by directing the Opposite Parties, particularly. Opposite Party No.2 to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in the OCR of the Petitioner for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and 15.08.2021 to 03.12.2021 under Annexure-7 Series and further the Opposite Parties may be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police as per his eligibility and the petitioner may be extended with all other consequential and service benefits as due and admissible within a reasonable time.

¶22

v) And/or pass any other order as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of this case.”

¶23

6. It is contended that against the adverse CCR communicated to the Petitioner under Annexure-6 series dtd.13.09.2021 and 29.11.2022, Petitioner when made his representation under Annexure-7 series vide letter dtd.15.09.2025, the Opp. Party No.2 refused to consider the representation on the ground that the representation has been filed beyond the period of limitation under Annexure-8 series communication dtd.24.12.2025.

¶24

6. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner is affected because of the adverse CCR and though it is not disputed that the representation was filed beyond the period of limitation, but the same should have been considered by Opp. Party No.2 in accordance with law, but the

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

Opp. Party No. 2 refused to consider the representation on the ground of delay.

¶28

6 .2. It is contended that since Petitioner’s career is in jeopardy because of the adverse CCR, unless his representation is considered in accordance with law, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced.

¶29

7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned rejection available under Annexure-8 series, contended that against the adverse CCR communicated on dated 13.09.2021 and 29.11.2022, Petitioner was required to file his representation within a period of 45 days and not beyond a period of 6 months.

¶30

7 .1. It is contended that against such adverse CCR, Petitioner admittedly made the representation on 15.09.2025, which is beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, Opp. Party No.2 rejected the representation on the ground of delay vide the impugned order dtd.24.12.2025 under Annexure-8 series. It is accordingly contended that since at every stage Petitioner is making delayed grievance before the authority, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection.

¶31

8 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that against the adverse CCR communicated to the Petitioner under Annexure-6

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

// 4 //

¶34

series on 13.09.2021 and 29.11.2022, Petitioner made the representation on 15.09.2025 under Annexure-7 series.

¶35

8. 1. As found, such representation of the Petitioner was not entertained on the ground of delayed submission by Opp. Party No.2 vide order dtd.24.12.2025 under Annexure-8 series. Though it is not disputed that Petitioner has submitted the representation beyond the period of limitation, but it is the view of this Court that since Petitioner is affected because of such adverse CCR, Opp. Party No.2 should have considered the representation on merit instead of rejecting the same on the ground of delay vide order under Annexure-8 series.

¶36

8. 2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing orders issued under Annexure-8 series, directs Opp. Party No.2 to consider the representation made by the Petitioner as against the adverse CCR under Annexure-6 series in accordance with law within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner.

¶37

9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶39

Signature Not VerifiedBasudev

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Apr-2026 10:52:01

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Ramesh Chandra Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilamani Mangaraj Vs Biranchi Narayan Pradhan, Engineer in Chief, (Public Health), Odisha

Sarada Prasad Mohanty Vs Deo Ranjan Sing, I.A.S.

Sanjaya Naik Vs Deo Ranjan Sing, I.A.S

Dhanurdhar Pattanayak Vs State of Odisha

Cosboard Industries Ltd., Cuttack Vs the Executive Engineer (Elec), T.P. Central Odisha Distribution Ltd, Cesu Colony, Cuttack

Daitary Sahu @ Daityari Sahu Vs State of Odisha