JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner has invoked our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of the adverse entries made in his character roll far the year 1963-64 and for consequential benefits arising therefrom. 2. The Petitioner was appointed on 22-7-1957 as an Upper Division Statistical Clerk in the Bureau of Statistics and Economics. He was promoted as Junior Statistical Assistant with effect from April 1, 1961 and was confirmed on April 1, 1963. Chances for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant came an his way in 1964 and 1965. His Juniors were promoted and not he. Remade representation to' the Government assailing his supersession with effect from August 20, 1966. He was prompted to the post of Statistical Investigator with effect from January 3; 1975. In the meanwhile the representation of the Petitioner impugning his supersession was rejected by the Director and the Government. He made representation to the Chief Minister in 1982, but moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 786 of 1982 and this Court disposed of the same directing the State Government to dispose of the representation within a period of six months. 3. When his representation was rejected the Petitioner moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 1606 of 1982. Therein, he impugned the supersession by persons junior to him and the bald order is passed by the State Government rejecting his representation. The State Government averred that the supersession of the Petitioner in the years 1964 and 1965 was due to the adverse entries in his character roll. The Petitioner alleged that the disclosure came as a surprise to him as at no earlier point of time he had been informed that his performance or conduct was bad, wanting or unsatisfactory. In view of the said stand taken by the State Government in the return, this Court directed communication of the adverse entries by order dated 4-11-1982 in the following terms: ...From the counter affidavit it appears that some adverse entries in the character roll have been relied upon. In case those have not been communicated to the Petitioner, the same be communicated within one month from now and the Petitioner is entitled to represent against such adverse entries if he so likes or take such other steps as he considers appropriate for quashing of the same.... In case those have not been communicated to the Petitioner, the same be communicated within one month from now and the Petitioner is entitled to represent against such adverse entries if he so likes or take such other steps as he considers appropriate for quashing of the same.... The adverse entries were communicated to the Petitioner under Annexure-2 dated November 12, 1982. The text is as follows: You are informed that the following adverse remarks have been recorded in your confidential character roll for the period indicated below. The undersigned hopes that you will take note of the defects pointed out and improve yourself. 1963-54 - He keeps pendency of work. He avoids responsibility frequently. He made representation for expunction of the adverse entries of December 12, 1982. This writ application was filed on March 7, 1983, for the quashing of the adverse entries and consequential benefits. During the pendency of the writ application, order rejecting his representation was communicated by Annexure-3 dated March 2, 1984. The Petitioner has retired in the meanwhile. 4. In the return submitted by the opposite parties and the further affidavit filed by them, the facts are not disputed. The substances of the stand taken by the opposite parties is that the adverse entries for the year 1963-64 were entered in his character roll on the basis of his performance and conduct and he was denied promotion in the years 1964 and 1965 on the basis and because of the ad verse entries. We quote: ...When vacancies arose in 1964, his case was duly considered and as his performance was not found satisfactory he was not found suitable for promotion and was accordingly superseded. On two occasions in 1965 also his case was considered for promotion but because of the adverse entries in the C.C.R. of 1963-64 he was not found suitable. He was however promoted to the next higher grade of Statistical Assistant in 1966 after his performance was found to have improved during the intervening period.... 5. In course of hearing, having regard to the allegation that the prescribed authorities had not applied their mind while making the entries and also at the subsequent stages, we called upon the State Counsel to produce the character roll. The opposite parties also filed an affidavit explaining the position. 5. In course of hearing, having regard to the allegation that the prescribed authorities had not applied their mind while making the entries and also at the subsequent stages, we called upon the State Counsel to produce the character roll. The opposite parties also filed an affidavit explaining the position. The following statement has some bearing: ...That it is pertinent to mention here that the C.C.R. of the Petitioner for the year 1963-64 has not been countersigned by the Director, but the remarks of the Reporting Officer, relating to the Petitioner were duly taken into consideration at the time of considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the higher post. Director having accepted the remarks of the Reporting Officer did not choose the Petitioner while considering him to give promotion. Thus, the counter-signing Officer (Director), in fact, has concurred the remarks of the Reporting Officer relating to the Petitioner for the year 1963-64. 6. The law relating to character roll and its maintenance, adverse entries therein and the duty of the employee vis-a-vis the instrumentalities of the state has been exhaustively laid down in the decision of the Full Bench in the case of S.S.S. Venket Rao v. State of Orissa ILR 1974 Cutt. 227. It is unnecessary to reproduce all the principles enunciated by this Court. Of them, we quote those which are material for and relevant to our purpose: If the adverse entry is not communicated at all for an unusually long period and action is taken on the basis of the adverse entry, a Government servant can ask for appropriate writ directing the Government to communicate the adverse entry and to dispose of the representation, if any. In appropriate cases depending on facts and circumstances, adverse action taken against the Government servant is liable to be quashed. Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab and Others has been cited before us. There the petietioner's name was not included in the select list for the purpose of promotion to the Indian Administrative Service because of the refusal of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab to grant an integrity certificate to Gurdial in view or adverse report in his confidential roll. Though be made representation, neither did the Government consider the same nor decide if the report was justified. Though be made representation, neither did the Government consider the same nor decide if the report was justified. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court observed: The principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules or natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll can not be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the Appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the report was justified. In these circumstances, it is difficult to support the non-issuance of the integrity certificate to the Appellant. The chain of reaction began with the ad verse report and the infirmity in the link of causation is that no one has yet decided whether that report was justified. We cannot speculate, in the absence of a proper, pleading whether the Appellant was not found suitable otherwise, that is to say, for reasons other than those connected with the non-issuance of an integrity certificate to him. Final Result : Allowed