Cuttack: The Orissa high court has ordered a fresh consideration of an adverse confidential character roll (CCR) remark describing a judicial officer as “not trustworthy”, observing that the material on which the assessment was based has subsequently been found unsustainable.A division bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sibo Sankar Mishra, in its Sept 10 judgment, directed the court’s registrar general to place the representation of the judicial officer before Chief Justice Harish Tandon for reconsideration and for a decision on whether the matter should be placed before the full court for expunction of the adverse remark.The exercise has been directed to be completed within one month. The judicial officer had approached the HC in 2024 challenging the adverse remarks communicated to him in Oct 2022 and the rejection of his representation. He had sought removal of the remark under the “integrity” head as well as the “average” grading given to him for 2021.He argued that the serious observation that he was “not trustworthy” had been made without mentioning any specific incident or reason. He also submitted that he had enjoyed an otherwise satisfactory service career without any adverse comment before his tenure as registrar (judicial) in the high court registry.He entered judicial service as a civil judge (junior division) in Nov 1997 and subsequently served in several capacities, including assistant registrar (administration), protocol officer, district judge and registrar (vigilance).The bench noted that the adverse assessment concerned only the period from Jan 4 to Feb 15, 2021. It observed that the then chief justice had assumed office on Jan 4 and “had not had sufficient time to make a comprehensive assessment” of the judicial officer’s performance. The court also referred to Clause 5(a) of the General Rules for Confidential Reports of Officers, which envisages a minimum four-month period for assessment.Importantly, the bench noted that the materials relied upon for the adverse entry had subsequently been judicially scrutinised and found unsustainable. The high court, in a judgment dated May 27, had set aside those materials in another writ petition. “Therefore, the entire matter has to be reviewed in the light of the judgment dated 27.05.2026,” the bench said.