JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - Petitioner's case may be stated in short. The Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director of Industries on 16-5-1955 and was confirmed in the post with effect from 16-8-1957. A vacancy in the next higher post of Joint Director of Industries occurred in 1957. The State Government passed an order on 4-3-1957 appointing the Petitioner as Joint Director on ad hoc basis, but that order was subsequently recalled on 30.8-1957. The post was advertised in 1958. The Public Service Commission did not recommend the name of the Petitioner on account of adverse remarks in his Confidential Character Roll. There was another vacancy in the post of Joint Director in the year 1961. The selfsame adverse remarks in the C.C.R. were also utilised against the Petitioner and one of his juniors, viz. Shri B. Misra was appointed to the post on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Another vacancy occurred in the year 1962 and the Petitioner was appointed on 7-4-1962 on ad hoc basis for a period of, six months. The Public Service Commission did not concur in the appointment due to the adverse entries in the C.C.R. So the Petitioner was reverted to his substantive post of Deputy Director with effect from 17-8-1962. He filed O.J.C. No. 6G of 1967, on 23-3-1967 praying for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government not to give effect to the order of reversion and also directing expunction by the adverse remarks made in his C.C.R. in the years 1955-56 to 1962-63. During the pendency of that writ petition, the State Government appointed the Petitioner to the post of Joint Director with effect from 4-8-1967 and he has been continuing in that post since then. O.J.C. No. 60 of 1967 was allowed on 24-12-1970. See G.C. Rout v. State ILR 1971 Cutt 313. A writ of mandamus was issued to the State Government directing them not to give effect to the order of reversion. With regard to the prayer for expunction of adverse remarks it was observed that the C.C.Rs. were incomplete and that the principles of natural justice had been violated both in the matter of irregular maintenance of the C.C.Rs. by disregarding the Book Circulars and in utilising the same against the Petitioner. With regard to the prayer for expunction of adverse remarks it was observed that the C.C.Rs. were incomplete and that the principles of natural justice had been violated both in the matter of irregular maintenance of the C.C.Rs. by disregarding the Book Circulars and in utilising the same against the Petitioner. No relief was, however, granted on the ground that there is a, forum provided for such a remedy by way of representation to Government. Thereafter the Petitioner made representations to the State Government on 15-3-1971 and 9-4-1971 for expunction of the adverse remarks made in his C.C.R. from 1955-56 to 1962-63 and for allowing consequential service benefits. (Vide Annexure-5). On 20th April, 1972 the State Government passed an order allowing the Petitioner to continue as Joint Director of Industries for the balance period of his ad hoc appointment, that is, from 18-8-1962 to 8-10-1962 (Annexure 7). But neither the adverse remarks were expunged nor the Petitioner's case was considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director after expiry of the period of his ad hoc appointment. Aggrieved by this order the Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 8-5-1972 claiming restoration to the post of Joint Director from 4-3-1957 till 7-4-1962 and from 7-10-1962 till 3-8-1967 with all consequential service benefits. During the pendency of this writ petition, 'the State Government passed an order on 11-7-1972 appointing the opposite party No. 3 Shri B.B. Mohanty as Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, a post which carries a scale of pay higher than, that of the post of Joint Director of Industries. The Petitioner's contention is that the appointment of opposite party No. 3 as Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies was made mala-fide in order to (sic) the relief claimed in this writ petition. So he claimed an additional relief for directing the State Government not to give effect to the order of appointment dated 11-7-1972. The Petitioner challenged the validity of the adverse remarks in his C.C.R. on Slarious grounds. He also alleged that on 24-2-1967 the Deputy Chief Minister had passed an order directing expunction of the adverse remarks for the years 1955-56 to 1962-63, but subsequently this order was counter manded by the Chief Minister on 7-3-1967. The Petitioner challenged the validity of the adverse remarks in his C.C.R. on Slarious grounds. He also alleged that on 24-2-1967 the Deputy Chief Minister had passed an order directing expunction of the adverse remarks for the years 1955-56 to 1962-63, but subsequently this order was counter manded by the Chief Minister on 7-3-1967. Again on 24-1-1973 the Chief Minister passed orders expunging the adverse remarks from the C.C.R. and Government orders were taken on 1-2-1973 to give to the Petitioner consequential benefits arising out of expunction of the adverse remarks from his C.C.R., but this order was also not given effect to and was superseded by an order dated 20-2-1974, passed by the Governor during the President's Rule. It is,alleged that a bias in favour of opposite party No. 3 was the motive force behind the malicious actions of the Secretary and the Under Secretary of the Industries Department in preventing implementation of the Chief Minister's order dated 24-1-1973. In a petition filed by the Petitioner on 6-7-1973, the Secretary Shri J.P. Das and the Deputy Secretary Shri N.K. Mohapatra were impleaded as opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, but during the course of hearing of the writ petition, the Petitioner filed a memo on 24-4-1974 for deleting their names which was allowed. 2. The State Government filed counter contending that the order dated 4-3-1957 passed by the Minister for Industries was subsequently recalled as it had been erroneously assumed that the Petitioner had eight years of experience and that the Petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of the order as it had not been communicated to him. It was similarly contended that the order dated 24-2-1967 of the Deputy Chief Minister and the order dated 24-1-1973 of the Chief Minister for expunging the adverse remarks from the C.C.R. not having been communicated to the Petitioner, no right accrued to him and it was open to Government before such communication and accrual of rights to alter, modify or annul the same, with regard to the Petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it was urged that this being an ex cadre post the Petitioner had no right to be considered for the same. The allegations of mala-fides on the part of the officers of the State Government were denied. The allegations of mala-fides on the part of the officers of the State Government were denied. In the' counter affidavit dated 26-3-1974 it is stated that on 28-2-1974 Government have taken the following decisions: (i) The remarks of the Reporting Officers (Joint Director of Industries) relating to the years. 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 shall be removed from records. (ii) The adverse remarks relating to the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 shall now be communicated to the Petitioner according to the prescribed procedure. (iii) The adverse remarks relating to the years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1962-63 had been communicated to the Petitioner and his representation for the year 1958-59 has been rejected. (iv) The question of appointment of the Petitioner as Joint Director of Industries from, 10-7-1958 to 8-4-1962 and from 9-10-1962 to 2 8-1967 would be considered by Government after the opinion of the Orissa Public Service Commission is obtained on reference to be made for the purpose. 3. On the above contentions of the parties the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the Government order dated 4-3-1957 appointing the Petitioner as Joint Director of Industries on ad hoc basis can be implemented. (2) Whether the Petitioner had a right to continue in the post of Joint Director of Industries after expiry of his six months tenure on 8-10-1962 by virtue of the decision rendered by this Court in O.J.C. No. 60 of 1967. (3) Whether the order dated 24-2-1967 made by the Deputy Chief Minister for expunging the adverse remarks for the years 1956-57 to 1962-63 can be given effect to. (4) Whether the Petitioner had a right to be considered for the post of Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 11-4-1972. (5) Whether the Chief Minister's order dated 24-1-1973 for expunging the adverse remarks from, the C.C.R. of the Petitioner and for giving him consequential benefits arising out of expunction of the adverse remarks can be acted upon. (6) Whether the adverse remarks made in the C.C.R. of the Petitioner for the years 1955-56 to 1962-63 are liable to be expunged. 4. Point (1): Admittedly there was a Government order on 4-3-1957 for appointment of the Petitioner as Joint Director of Industries on ad hoc basis, but it was superseded by a subsequent Government order dated 30-8-1957. Government cannot be called upon to implement the order dated 4-3-1957 was it no longer exists. 4. Point (1): Admittedly there was a Government order on 4-3-1957 for appointment of the Petitioner as Joint Director of Industries on ad hoc basis, but it was superseded by a subsequent Government order dated 30-8-1957. Government cannot be called upon to implement the order dated 4-3-1957 was it no longer exists. The Government order dated 4-3-1957 having not been communicated to the Petitioner, he cannot claim any right on the basis thereof. The position of law is well settled that until a final decision is reached by the Governor on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and until the same is communicated to the party concerned by issuing an order in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution, the advice of the Council of Ministers cannot be acted upon, as before that, it does not attain any finality. Until such finality is reached it is open to Government to re-consider the matter over and over again. Vide Bishnu Charan Mohanty v. State of Orissa and Ors ILR 1973 Cutt 339. It, however appears that the post of Joint Director, was advertised on 10-7-1958 and the State Government have now taken a decision to consider the Petitioner's case far promotion from that date after consultation with the Public Service Commission. 5. Point No. (2): Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed on 7-4-1962 as Joint Director of Industries an ad hoc basis for a period of six months. Though he was illegally reverted from that post with effect from 17-8-1962. he was allowed to continue in that post for the balance period of his ad hoc appointment, i.e. from 18-8-1962 to 8-10-1962 in pursuance of the writ of mandamus issued by this Court in O.J.C. No. 60 of 1967. It is common ground that the Public Service Commission did not concur in the appointment. The Petitioner cannot therefore, claim any right to continue in that post after 8.10.1962. He has however, a right to be considered for the post with effect from 8-10-1962. Government have also taken such a decision on 28-2-1974. 6. Point No. (3); Admittedly the Deputy Minister of Industries had, after consultation with the Law Department, directed by his order dated 14-2-1967 that the adverse remarks in the C.C.R. of the Petitioner should be expunged as in his opinion such remarks had been recorded' deliberately with a view to put down the officer. 6. Point No. (3); Admittedly the Deputy Minister of Industries had, after consultation with the Law Department, directed by his order dated 14-2-1967 that the adverse remarks in the C.C.R. of the Petitioner should be expunged as in his opinion such remarks had been recorded' deliberately with a view to put down the officer. The Deputy Chief Minister agreed with the views of the Deputy Minister by his order dated 24-2-1967. Vide Annexure-63. But this order of the Deputy Chief Minister was subsequently countermanded by the then Chief Minister Shri Sadasiv Tripathy by his order dated 7-3-1967. The Petitioner's contention is that the Chief Minister was not competent to override a decision given by the Deputy Chief Minister. Under Instruction No. 14 (xiix) (iii) issued under Rule 14 of the Rules of Business made under Article 166 of the Constitution of India the Chief Minister may specially direct any case or class of cases to be submitted to him. Of course, the rule does not say that the Chief Minister would be entitled to pass orders, but it clearly implies that he has a right to interfere and make such orders as he deems proper. Moreover, Rule 7 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Orissa provides as follows: Rule 7. The Council shall be collectively responsible for all executive orders issued in the name of the Governor in accordance with these rules whether such orders are authorised by an individual Minister on a matter appertaining his portfolio or as a result of discussion at a meeting of the Council or of the Cabinet or howsoever otherwise. Thus, the order passed by the Chief Minister will be deemed to be an order of the Council of Ministers. It is also to be noted in this connection that the order passed by the Deputy Chief Minister on 24-2-1967 for expunction of the adverse remarks was not communicated to the Petitioner and as such he cannot claim any right on the basis thereof. 7. Point No. (4): It is, no doubt, true that the post of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, subsequently redesigned as Director of Textiles, is not included in the cadre of the Orissa Industries Service. 7. Point No. (4): It is, no doubt, true that the post of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, subsequently redesigned as Director of Textiles, is not included in the cadre of the Orissa Industries Service. It appears, however, that: the State Government issued a requisition in the prescribed form (Annexure-84) along with a forwarding letter (Annexure 83) to the Public Service Commission for recommendation of officers for promotion to the post of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The particulars supplied by Government in the presided form would show that the post of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies was required to be filled up by promotion from the post of Joint Director of Industries. In the forwarding letter (Annexure 83) it was clearly stated that the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies was under the administrative control of the Industries Department though he was attached to the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies so far as the co-operative matters were concerned. It was also stated therein that Government had promoted Shri B.B. Mohanty, Joint Director of Industries (opp. party No. 3) to that post on ad hoc basis. The Petitioner's case was not referred to the Public Service Commission for consideration though he was holding the post of a Joint Director of Industries by that time. The learned Additional Government Advocate relied on a decision reported in Dr. Jai Narain Misra Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and argued that the post of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies was outside the cadre of the Industries Service and that merely because the Government in its letter to the Commission used the word "promotion", the case should not be treated as one of promotion. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable. The distinguishing feature is that in the instant case the State Government had taken, a decision to promote one of, the Joint Directors to that post, but they referred only the case of opposite, party No. 3 for consideration, overlooking the claim of the Petitioner to be considered for that post. From the extracts of the Industries Department file No. 1-CI-202 of 1972 dealing with the proposal for filling up the post of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (vide Annexure-80), it appears that Government had taken a decision to promote one senior Joint Director of Industries as Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies. From the extracts of the Industries Department file No. 1-CI-202 of 1972 dealing with the proposal for filling up the post of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (vide Annexure-80), it appears that Government had taken a decision to promote one senior Joint Director of Industries as Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It also appears from the minutes of the Minister for Industries dated 15-1-1973 recorded in die file that opposite party No. 3 Shri B.B. Mohanty was allowed to continue as Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (re-designated as Director of Textiles) beyond the period of his ad hoc appointment until further orders pending disposal of the representation of the Petitioner. It transpires from it memorandum dated 26-2-1974 submitted by the Political & Services Department to the Advisory Council that a recommendation was made in paragraph 9 thereof that if Shri Rout is restored to the rank of Joint Director of Industries retrospectively, he would gain seniority over opposite party No. 3 Shri B.B. Mohanty and consequently his case would be referred to the Public Service Commission for considering his suitability or otherwise for the post of Director of Textiles. A copy of this memorandum was filed by the Additional Government Advocate on 24-4-1974. It is, thus, clear that Government decided to fill up the post of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies by way of promotion from the post of Joint Director of Industries, but they did not refer the Petitioner's case to the Public Service Commission for considering his suitability or otherwise. We, therefore, hold that the Petitioner had a right to be considered for that post on 11-4-1972. 8. Point No. (5): It is an admitted fact that on the representation of the Petitioner in Annexure-5, orders of the Chief Minister had been obtained on 24-1-1973 by the Industries Department for expunction of the adverse remarks from the Character Roll. It was also decided by Government to give to the Petitioner consequential service benefits arising out of the expunction of the adverse remarks. This order of the Chief Minister was passed on the recommendation of the Minister for Industries and after consultation with the Advocate-General and the Law Department. But the order of the Chief Minister was not implemented and it was superseded by the order dated 20-2-1974 of the Governor during the President's Rule. This order of the Chief Minister was passed on the recommendation of the Minister for Industries and after consultation with the Advocate-General and the Law Department. But the order of the Chief Minister was not implemented and it was superseded by the order dated 20-2-1974 of the Governor during the President's Rule. The sale ground taken for super session of the order of the Chief Minister is that there was a procedural irregularity involved in obtaining the orders of the Chief Minister in the Industries Department as, it was a matter allotted to the Political & Services Department under the Rules of Business-Vide para 4 of the memorandum dated 26-2-1974 submitted to the Advisory Council by the Political and Services Department. One of the subjects allotted to the Political and Services Department in the first Schedule of the Rules of Business is as follows: General conditions of service, affecting all public services in matters of appointment, confirmation, leave, pay travelling allowance, pension, extension and employment, etc. and interpretation of rules pertaining thereto. Retrenchment. There is nothing in the Rules of Business to indicate that the question of expunction of adverse remarks in the Character Rolls of the officers working in different Departments of Government is to be dealt with by the Political & Services Department. In our opinion, the Industries Department is the appropriate administrative department to deal with the representation of the Petitioner for expunction of the adverse remarks though the Character Rolls are maintained by the Political and Services Department. The Petitioner, however, cannot call upon. the Government to implement the Chief Minister's order dated 24-1-1973 as it was never communicated to him and it has been subsequently superseded by the order of the Governor dated 20-2-1974. 9. Point No. (6): The provisions for maintenance of Character Rolls and for communication of the adverse remarks to the officers concerned are made by way of administrative instructions contained in the Book Circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. The relevant Book Circulars applicable to the present case are No. 5 dated 4-12-1946, No. 29 dated 19-2-1953 and No. 36 dated 11-8-1958. Book Circular No. 5 dated 4-12-1946 provides that all defects whether remediable or not should be communicated to the officer. The relevant Book Circulars applicable to the present case are No. 5 dated 4-12-1946, No. 29 dated 19-2-1953 and No. 36 dated 11-8-1958. Book Circular No. 5 dated 4-12-1946 provides that all defects whether remediable or not should be communicated to the officer. Book Circular No. 29 dated 29-2-1953 envisages that there should be as little delay as possible in conveying the adverse remarks to the officers concerned and that such remarks should be communicated to the officers before the end of December of the year in which they are recorded in the Character Rolls and that the officer conveying these remarks should intimate the Home Department that he has done so in the month of January of the following year. Book Circular No. 36 dated 11-8-1958 enjoins that when any defect is noticed in the work of an officer during the year and it is felt that the officer concerned will benefit if the defect is pointed out to him the Reporting Officer should indicate the defect to the concerned officer during the course of the year immediately after the defect has been noticed and thereafter mention should be made in Part IV of the Confidential Character Roll of the fact that such defects have been brought to the notice of the officer concerned. For en baling the Reporting Officer to do this, a sort of ephemeral Character Roll is required to be maintained by him in which such defects brought to the notice of the officer concerned may be recorded from time to time before these are drafted to the regular Character Roll form of the officer after the end of the year. Thus, it is clear that the duty of the Reporting Officer is not only to make an objective assessment of the work and conduct of the subordinates but also to give them the necessary advice and guidance to rectify their defects. The Circular also provides that the procedure for communication of adverse remarks to officers concerned, prescribed in Book Circular No. 5 should continue, except that for some specific items Government may ask for substantiation from the Reporting Officers if a representation is received from the officer concerned, after he has been communicated adverse remarks, if any, and the remarks relating to such items shall be endorsed by Government in the Character Roll. 10. 10. The entire Character Roll of the Petitioner from 1955-56 to 1962-63 was made available to us by the Additional Government Advocate and we have carefully gone through the same. We are satisfied that the procedure prescribed by the Book Circulars-for recording of adverse remarks and for communication of the same has been systematically infringed in the case of the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner alleged that the adverse remarks entered in his Character Roll were not genuine a were tainted with bias and prejudice, the State Government did not produce any ephemeral Character Roll maintained by the Reporting Officers. It is also not shown that the defects were brought to the notice of the Petitioner before recording of the adverse remarks. Part IV of the prescribed form has been left blank in the C.C.R. for most of the years. None of the Character Rolls also contains any remark by the Deputy Minister or the Minister in the appropriate column of the prescribed form. Thus, the impugned Character Rolls are incomplete records. 11. The adverse remarks for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 have not been countersigned by any superior officer. Under Book Circular No. 29 dated 19-2-1953 the superior authority of the Reporting Officer was required to examine the entry and find out if the officer had properly reported according to the requirements of the prescribed form and had followed the instructions on the subject. These remarks have also not been communicated to the Petitioner although a period of about 18 years has elapsed in the meantime. The Book Circulars envisage communication of the adverse remarks following the universally accepted rule of natural justice that an officer should be made aware of his defects and he should be given an opportunity to explain the same. It is interesting to note in this connection that in their committer affidavit dated 8-8-1969 filed by the Government in O.J.C. No. 60 of 1967 (Vide Annexure 74) it was stated in paragraph 10 as follows: That vide the facts stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition it is admitted that adverse remarks for 1955-56 and 1956-57 were not communicated to him because the opposite party did not feel it necessary to communicate the same remarks to the Petitioner. As the Character Roll for these years contained adverse remarks, it was necessary to communicate the same to the Petitioner as provided under the Book Circulars. If the Government did not feel it necessary to communicate the remarks to the Petitioner, they should not have utilised the same against him while considering his, case for promotion. 12. With regard to the Character Roll for the year 1957-58, it is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that although the adverse remarks were communicated to the Petitioner on 7-7-1958 he did not file any representation against the same. Vide para 12 of the counter affidavit dated 15-4-1974. This contention is untrue. It would appear from the observations trade by this Court in O.J.C. No. 60 of 1907 that the Petitioner did make a representation, but no action was taken on it. In para 11 of the judgment this Court observed as follows: The Petitioner, however, represented against the adverse remarks made in the Character Roll for the year 1957-58, but no action appears to have been taken by the Government on it. Vide G.C. Rout v. State ILR 1971 Cutt 313. Thus, it appears that the representation made by the Petitioner against the adverse remarks in the Character Roll for the year 1957-1958 is still pending with the Government. Despite the above observations of the Court and the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time for prompt disposal of representations no action appears to have been taken so far to dispose of the Petitioner's representation. In this connection it is relevant to refer to letter No. 11432 (115)/Gen. dated the 8th August, 1973 from the Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Political and Services Department to all Departments of Government and others where in it was laid down as follows: The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department memo No. 4017 (115)/Gen. dated 15-3-1973 inviting attention to the Book Circular No. 25 on the expeditious disposal of memorials and representations to Government. In spite of these instructions it has come to the notice of Governor that there is a great deal of avoidable delay at every level in the disposal of representations and memorials. dated 15-3-1973 inviting attention to the Book Circular No. 25 on the expeditious disposal of memorials and representations to Government. In spite of these instructions it has come to the notice of Governor that there is a great deal of avoidable delay at every level in the disposal of representations and memorials. In view of this, I am directed to request you to ensure that memorials and representations are finally disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same. In the case of S.S.S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa and Ors. O.J.C. No. 351 of 1972, a Full Bench of this Court while dealing with the question of representation against adverse entries in the Character Rolls observed that in appropriate cases it would be open to the High Court to interfere with adverse action taken against Government servant arising out of undue delay in the disposal of the representation. According to the Petitioner, he made the, representation on 20-8-1958 and it has been kept pending with the Government for the last sixteen years. In these circumstances the adverse remarks made in the Character Roll for 1957-58 should be ignored. 13. The adverse remark made in the Character Roll for 1958-59 has not been countersigned by any superior officer as required by the Book Circulars. Thus, it is an incomplete record and there is no means at present to complete the same. As already indicated above, the superior authority of the Reporting Officer was required by Book Circular No. 29 dated 19.2.1953 to examine the adverse entry and find out if the officer had properly reported according to the requirements of the prescribed form and had followed the instructions on the subject. The adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer cannot, therefore, be utilised against the Petitioner as being in contravention of the above instructions. 14. The adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officers in the C.C.R. of the Petitioner for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 have been expunged as per Government decision dated 28-2-1974 although the representation made by the Petitioner had been rejected on 6-5-1963. So, only the remarks recorded by the countersigning officers remain after removal of the remarks of the Reporting Officers. So, only the remarks recorded by the countersigning officers remain after removal of the remarks of the Reporting Officers. The complaint of the Petitioner is that the adverse remarks of the countersigning officers have not been made in accordance with the procedure that has been prescribed by the Book Circulars. The countersigning officers did not maintain any (sic) Character Roll and did not bring the defects to the notice of the Petitioner during the course of the year in which the remarks were made. Thus, the remarks of the countersigning officers are not in accordance with the Book Circular No. 36 dated 11-8-1958. It IS unfair to a civil servant to deny him any promotion on account of defects which he could have removed had he been informed of the same. In the C.C.R. for the year 1959-60 the countersigning officer has simply put his signature under the printed endorsement. The endorsement is misleading inasmuch as it says subject to my above general remarks without recording any general remark. Moreover, it appears that in the Petitioner's representation (Annexure 45), the genuineness of the adverse remarks was challenged and it was also alleged that the remarks were the outcome of bias and prejudice. Thereafter the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Industries Department in his D.O. letter No. 4960 dated 18th March. 1963 (Annexure 48-A) asked for substantiation from the Director of Industries. According to Book Circular No. 36 dated 11-8-1958 when a representation is made and substantiation report is called for the remarks are to be endorsed by Government in the Character Roll. No remark appears to have been recorded by any Deputy Minister or Minister on the Character Rolls for these three years. Moreover, the adverse remarks were not placed before the Chief Minister before communication to the Petitioner as required by Instruction No. 14(I)(xxxi) issued under Rule 14 of the Rules of Business which was then in force. As regards the adverse entry dated 7-4-1962, made in the C.C.R. for 1961-62 the countersigning officer has not recorded' any remark on the ground that the Petitioner did not work under him for sufficient time. In view of what has been stated above the remarks for all the three years, i.e. 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 should be ignored. 15. As regards the adverse entry dated 7-4-1962, made in the C.C.R. for 1961-62 the countersigning officer has not recorded' any remark on the ground that the Petitioner did not work under him for sufficient time. In view of what has been stated above the remarks for all the three years, i.e. 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 should be ignored. 15. As regards the adverse entry in the C.C.R. for the year 1962-63 no remark has been recorded by the Minister in the appropriate column of the prescribed form. Though the adverse remark was communicated to the Petitioner on 29-6-1963, it was not placed before the Chief Minister before communication as required under Instruction No. 14(I)(xxxi) issued under the Rules of Business. Thus, the C.C.R. for this year is an incomplete record and the communication of the adverse remark was in violation of the instructions issued under the Rules of Business. 16. Learned Additional Government Advocate strenuously urged that the relief claimed by the Petitioner for expunction of the adverse remarks is barred by res judicata. As indicated earlier the question of expunction of the adverse remarks was not finally. I decided by this Court in O.J.C. No. 60 of 1967 on the ground that there was another form provided for such a remedy by way of representation to Government. The decision in that case did not give any right to the Government not to communicate the adverse remarks or not to dispose of his pending representations. Government were to communicate the adverse remarks and dispose of the representations according to the prescribed procedure. There is, therefore, no substantiation this contention. 17. As regards the Petitioner's allegations of mala fides, we do not find it possible to deduce any animosity on 'the part of the' Government for anyone of the reasons pressed on us. The fact that the order dated 24-2-1967 of the Deputy Chief Minister and the order dated 24-1-1973 of the Chief Minister for expunction of the adverse remarks were superseded by subsequent orders and that there was undue delay in communication of the adverse remarks and disposal of the representations do not necessarily establish antagonism. If the case of E.P. Royappa Vs. If the case of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another the Supreme Court observed that the, burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it and that the very seriousness of such allegation demands proof of a high order of credibility. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the Petitioner and a mass of official nothings were brought to our notice on this aspect of the case. It is not possible for us to hold that the Petitioner has been able to discharge the heavy onus of establishing mala fides. This contention is accordingly, rejected. 18. As mentioned earlier, a Bench at this Court came that the Character. Rolls to the finding in G.C. Rout v. State ILR 1971 Cutt 313 containing adverse remarks against the Petitioner were incomplete and that the principles of natural justice had been violated both in the matter of irregular maintenance of the Character Rolls and in utilising the same against the Petitioner. The decision in that case stands final and conclusive and is binding on the parties. Despite the above finding the State Government, neither communicated the adverse remarks to the, Petitioner nor did they dispose of his representations. During the pendency of the present writ petition the self-same adverse remarks were utilised against the Petitioner in the matter of promotion to the post of Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies although the contentions of the Petitioner now raised before us were duly appreciated by the Ministers concerned. In this connection it is relevant to quote some extracts from the minutes of the Ministers which are as under: (a)...Shri Rout, has however been complaining of mala fides in these adverse remarks since 1957-58 and in his latest representations made in form of a memorandum to the Chief Secretary, placed in the linked file he has specifically alleged violation of rules and instructions of Government prescribed for protection of Government servants in matters of Confidential Character Rolls. It is also seen from the file that at no time any explanation was called for from Shri Rout. No proceeding was drawn up against him for adverse entries in his C.C.R. His crossing of Efficiency Bar, increments and confirmation etc. were given' in time. It is also seen from the file that at no time any explanation was called for from Shri Rout. No proceeding was drawn up against him for adverse entries in his C.C.R. His crossing of Efficiency Bar, increments and confirmation etc. were given' in time. There is no endorsement of Government on the body of the C.C.R. even after representations of the officer against the adverse remarks in his C.C.R. (Vide minutes dated 20-10-1966 of Shri C.R. Nayak, Deputy Minister, Industries Annexure 62). (b) I have seen the views of the Law Department. It has been accepted that Shri Rout has a legitimate complain that he has been prejudiced by assessment of his case (Law Department's views at page 17/Ns). The object of maintaining C.C.R. is not only to penalise the officer but also to help him to develop his standard. If this is not done, the purpose of keeping such records becomes meaningless and this has been so in this particular case. It may be a mistake of a particular officer if he has not communicated, rather I would say who has not helped his subordinate to develop his conduct as mentioned by P. & S.I.N previous notes. But for the mistake of a particular officer how the other officer is to be penalised. A particular mistake may be committed once but how can it be repeated. The memorial of the particular officer has also not been heard and adverse remarks have not been substantiated even though it has lately been asked for. All along the Departments concerned have tried to justify the action rather than point out the mistakes. I strongly feel that Shri Rout has not been given proper justice of rules be only wait for re-commendations of others, I would say, that there would be triumph of (sic) and proper justice would not be accorded to Shri Rout. Therefore, I (sic) that the C.C.Rs. which have not been communicated in time and not substantiated properly and Ministers have not endorsed, such adverse remarks should be expunged as in my opinion such remarks have been entered deliberately with a view to put down a particular officer. The Minister is out. Before that Deputy Chief Minister has previously seen this file. He may see and pass, final orders. The case may be sent to Public Service Commission after expunction of the adverse remarks in C.C.R. Sd. The Minister is out. Before that Deputy Chief Minister has previously seen this file. He may see and pass, final orders. The case may be sent to Public Service Commission after expunction of the adverse remarks in C.C.R. Sd. C. Naik 14-2-1967 Deputy Minister, Industries. Deputy C.M. (P. & S.) I have seen the views of the Law Department. I agree with the views of the Deputy Minister. Sd. N. Routray 24-2-1967 Deputy Chief Minister (Minister P. & S., Orissa). (Vide extracts from Industries Department file No. 2D-7/65/ in Annexure-63). (c) I have carefully gone through this case along with the judgment of the High Court. I find that the opinion of the Advocate General on the judgment has been given effect to only partially by allowing Shri Rout to continue in the post of Joint Director of Industries for the period unexpired of his ad hoc appointment. From the fact that the High Court quashed the order of reversion of Shri Rout it would naturally follow that the cause of action against Shri Rout would cease to exist and he would be deemed to be in continuous service as J.D.I. This is a vital issue for consequential benefit of promotion in the context of appointment of Shri B.B. Mohanty, J.D.I. as Additional R.C.S.I.N super session of the claim of Shri Rout. The Advocate General had given definite views as regards the question of expunction of adverse entries in the C.C.R. of Shri Rout vide page 43/N portion marked (sic) of linked file No. Estt. 7D-21/72. It may be recalled that as long back as 1967 I, as the then Minister, P. & S. Department passed orders for expunction of the adverse remarks in the C.C.R. of Shri Rout on the basis of the views of the Law Department and the advice of the then Deputy. Minister Industries. This was, however, not agreed to by the then Chief Minister. The observations of the High Court in its judgment definitely warrant a review of the earlier order. After referring to different case laws the High Court has observed that the principles of natural justice have been violated both in the matter of irregular maintenance of C.C.R. of Shri Rout by disregarding the provisions of Book. Circulars and by utilising the same against' him. After referring to different case laws the High Court has observed that the principles of natural justice have been violated both in the matter of irregular maintenance of C.C.R. of Shri Rout by disregarding the provisions of Book. Circulars and by utilising the same against' him. In fact, recently the Cabinet relying upon the principles laid down by the High Court in the writ case of Shri G.C. Rout, have not accepted the advice of the Public Service Commission to demote Shri B.K. Acharya, C.S.O., Supply Department on the ground of non-communication of adverse remarks in him. This case is of the same nature. After going through the observations of the High Court on this issue, I strongly feel that the adverse entries in the C.C.R. of Shri Rout should be expunged. Chief Minister may see. Sd. N. Routray November 12, 1972 Chief Minister. The opinion of present Advocate General may be obtained. Sd. N. Satpathy 21-12-1972 The views of the Advocate-General and the Government Advocate were obtained. Then the Chief Minister passed the following order; Seen the views of the Government Advocate. As proposed by the Minister at 'A' on page 9/N: Sd. N. Satpathy Chief Minister 24-1-1973. (Vide extracts from Government file Est. 6D 80/72 in Annexure-77). 19. The way in which the Petitioner's case has been dealt with by the authorities has left an impression in our mind that he has not been given a fair deal It is rather unfortunate that he was deprived of his legitimate right of being considered for promotion on several occasions on account of the an communicated adverse remarks while his representations against the same remained pending with the Government. After the decision in O.J.C. No. 60 of 1967, the proper and right thing would have been for the authorities to have communicated the adverse remarks and to have disposed of all pending representations. But even thereafter the authorities continued to be callous. It is really strange that the adverse remarks of the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 have not yet been communicated to the Petitioner and a representation made by him on 20-8-1958 against the adverse remark of the year 1957-58 is still profiting. The C.C. Rs. are incomplete records and there is no means to complete the same. It is really strange that the adverse remarks of the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 have not yet been communicated to the Petitioner and a representation made by him on 20-8-1958 against the adverse remark of the year 1957-58 is still profiting. The C.C. Rs. are incomplete records and there is no means to complete the same. In these circumstances and in view of the findings recorded in the previous, case, this is, in our view, a clear case for interference by the Court. The particular facts and circumstances of this case justify the application of the principle enunciated by the Full Bench decision referred to earlier that in appropriate cases where there is great delay, the High Court can quash the adverse remarks., 20. On the aforesaid analysis, we direct that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State Government directing them to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Joint Director of Industries for the period from 10-7-1958 till 8-4-1962 and from 9-10-1962 till 2-8-1967 and to the rank of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (re-designated as Director of Textiles) from 11-7 -197 after ignoring the adverse remarks recorded in the Character Ron of the Petitioner for the period from 1955-56 to 1962-63. The matter should be finalised by Government, within a period of two months hence. The writ application is allowed as indicated above with costs against opp. party No. 1. only. 21. Before concluding, we may observe that the Petitioner argued the case personally and presented the facts and the law with commendable clarity and moderation as any senior Advocate would have done. G.K. Misra, C.J. 22. I agree. Final Result : Allowed