JUDGMENT : R. A. Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner, who is a P. C. S. Officer in the service of the Government of U. P., while working as Sub-Divisional Magistrate (herein-after referred to as the SDM Kirtinagar, Tehri-Garhwal, was awarded the following adverse entry dated 6-5-1987 by the Collector, Tehri-Garhwal ; "Prantu Shri Upadhaya pargana adhikari ke roop me apna nayalaya ka karya su vayvasthet dhung se nahi dehk paye Shri Upadhaya ki nayalaya ke karya padhati sai vadhiyon ko khafi katnai evem nirhay be anavashak vilamb paya gaya. Shri Upadhaya prashasanik gopniytha banay rakhne me asafal rahe hai es liye unhey vishwas me nahi liya ja sakhtha. Shri Upadhaya appne he nirnayon me apeni jemedhari sevikar karna ko tayar nahi bote hai." 2. After its communication, the petitioner filed a representation before the State Government against it, which has been rejected by the State Government on 24th Decomber, 1988 and communicated to the petitioner through the letter dated 23-1-1989. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged aforesaid orders of the State Government and the Collector Tehri Garhwal. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that the Government has passed order rejecting the representation without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without assigning any reason. This paragraph is quoted below : "That however, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without assigning any reason and by wholly mechanically, the respondent no. 1 passed on order, dismissing the representation of the petitioner. A true copy of the said order passed by the respondent no. 1 is filed herewith .and is marked as Annexure 3 to this writ petition." 3. Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit of Sri D. D. Joshi, filed on behalf of the Government contains the reply of paragraph 6 of the writ petition, and allegations of the petitioner that the Government passed order without giving an opportunity of being heard, has not been denied. Paragraph 9 of the said affidavit is quoted below : "That in reply to the contents of para 6 of the writ petition it is stated that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered on merits after obtaining comments of the Reporting Officer and the State Government came to the conclusion that the adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer were justified. The representation was, therefore, rejected." 4. The representation was, therefore, rejected." 4. The Government has produced the whole record before us and from its perusal it is clear that the Government sent the representation of the petitioner to the then Collector, who had awarded the adverse entry, for his comments. The Collector sent his comments dated 29-4-1988 to the Government containing reference of various cases and other factual aspects. For example, regarding the working of the petitioner as S. D. M- the Collector has referred to four cases Nos. 64/86, 134/86, 26/86 and 121/86 in support of the adverse entry. After the original record was placed before us, we informed the learned counsel for the petitioners about these four cases and the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in which the report of the same Collector, who used to counter sign the diary of the daily work of the S. D. M., has been filed as Annexure RA-I. From the perusal of RA-I, it is clear that the Collector has himself made a note in the diary that warrants sent by the S. D. M. are not being executed by the police on account of which notices- have not been served on the accused, resulting in delay. From this report,, it is clear that the petitioner is not responsible for this delay. Regarding other two cases, the petitioner has filed copies of the order sheets to show that the allegation of excessive adjournments of the cases are wrong. There are various other allegations made by the Collector in his comments, which are capable of being explained by the petitioner. Apart from the fact that the averments of the petitioner regarding passing of the order by the Government without giving of opportunity have not been dented, from the persual record also it is clear that neither copy of the comments of the Collector nor its substance was given to the petitioner to have his say and give his explanation. From the original record, it is clear that the Government has rejected the representation of the petitioner solely on the ground of the comments, submitted by the Collector. Relevant extract from the order of the Government is quoted below : 'Uprokth se vidfh hai ke jin vishyath gatnayon ka varnan Ziladhikari ne kiya hai us, se pratit hota hai ke un ke dwara pravisht me diye gai sabhi ansh thatyathmak hai. Relevant extract from the order of the Government is quoted below : 'Uprokth se vidfh hai ke jin vishyath gatnayon ka varnan Ziladhikari ne kiya hai us, se pratit hota hai ke un ke dwara pravisht me diye gai sabhi ansh thatyathmak hai. Zila Adhikari ne aphi tippani dawara pramarnith kiya hai ke Sbri Upadhaya ke Nayalay ka karya su vaivasthit nahi tha we appne niryanon ke jimidari nahi late thai vah prashasnik gopniyatha bhang karne ke karan vishwas patra nai the jin vishyati gatnoyan/prakaron, ka uilekh Zila Adhikari ne kiya hai us se un ki pravisht me diye gaye mat ke pushti hote hai." 5. It may be noted that the Collector, who succeeded the Reporting Officer has sent commendatory letter to the Government in respect of the petitioner. Even the Commissioner of Garhwal Division sent a letter to the Government on 27-10-1988 in which he has mentioned that the petitioner has worked for about three years in his Division and he has watched his work very closely and he is fully satisfied with his work. By this letter the Commissioner has recommended the grant of senior grade to the petitioner. These recommendations of the succeeding Collector and the Commissioner have been discarded by the Government on account of factual instances given by the Collector in his comments. 6. A decision based on the material collected at the back of the affected person without giving any reasonable opportunity to him to rebut or contradict that material, is highly unfair and is violative of principle of natural justice. In Brajlal Manilal and Co. v. Union of India ( AIR 1964 SC 1643 ), Central Government in a review petition filed before it against the order of the State Government under Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, called for the comments/report from the State Government. Central Government relying on the report of the State Government rejected the review petition. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Central Government by holding that a Government cannot base its decision on a material regarding which the applicant had no opportunity to make a representation and as the Central Government has rejected the review application on the basis of the report of the State Government, the order is unfair and violative of principles of natural justice. Relevant extracts from this decision of the Supreme Court are quoted below ; "It does follow therefore that they could not act on the basis of material as regards which the appellants had no opportunity to "make their representation. No doubt, the decision in 1960-2 SCR 775 ; ( AIR 1960 SC 606 ) was concerned with a case where an order had been passed prejudicial to the respondents before the Central Government without affording them an opportunity to meet the case of an applicant for review but the same principle would, in our opinion, apply even where a petition for review is rejected based on materials which were not made available to the applicant for review. If the report of the State Government made any points against the representations made by the appellants and these were being taken into consideration by the Union Government, in common fairness, the appellants were entitled to be informed as to what these were and an opportunity to point out how far they militated against the Contentions raised by them, We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the order of the Central Government now under appeal is vitiated as being contrary to the principles of natural justice, in that the decision was rendered without affording to the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being heard which is a sine qua non of a fair hearing." In the aforesaid decision although it was held that the Central Government exercises quasi judicial power and, therefore, could not have passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice. But alter the decisions of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei ( AIR 1967 SC 1269 and A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ), it has been settled that an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice, and the distinction between the judicial and administrative act has ceased to be relevant for the purpose of applicability of the principles of natural justice. This position has been affirmed and reaffirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in several cases. A reference may be made to the case of S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan ( AIR 1981 SC 136 ). This position has been affirmed and reaffirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in several cases. A reference may be made to the case of S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan ( AIR 1981 SC 136 ). Retoant extract from paragraph 7 of this judgment is quoted below : "The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away and we have been liberated from the (sic) of 'administrative action'. Now from the time of the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967) 2 SCR 625 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1260 ), "even an administrative order which involves civil consequences ......must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice." In this case also the Supreme Court has laid down that a person must be supplied the information and the material on which the Government decision is based so as to enable him to make his representation. In the recent case of Management of M/s. M. S. Nally Bharat Engg. Co. Ltd. v. The. State of Bihar (Judgment Today 1990 (2) SC 96) same position has been reaffirmed. It is thus settled that administrative authorities should act fairly, reasonably and impartially. The principles of natural justice have been held to be implicit in the decision making function of the authorities. In the last cited case of Management of M/s. M. S. Nally Bharat Engg. Co. The Supreme Court has observed that: "Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. To use the time allowed phrase "that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done" is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper and good administration." In this case decision of the Government transferring a case from one Labour Court to another on the basis of the representation of the workman without giving an opportunity to the management to have its say, was held to be invalid, on account of being unfair and violative of principles of natural justice. 7. 7. The Government having based its decision rejecting the representation of the petitioner only on the basis of the comments of the Collector, which contains vast factual material without giving its copy or substance to the petitioner so as to enable him to have a say is highly unfair, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice. As such, it is liable to be set aside. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs and the order of the Government dated 24-12-1988 and the letter dated 23-1-1989, communicating the aforesaid order are quashed. The Government is directed to decide the petitioner's representation afresh after giving him reasonable opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him by the Collector in his comments. Petition allowed.