Judgment U.P.Singh and S.Hoda JJ. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he ought to have been given promotion with effect from 20-8-1981 and 20-8-1985, the date on which the persons junior to him were promoted by the Board and the petitioner was illegally superseded. It is further stated that non est adverse entries made in the year 1985 were taken into consideration to supersede his promotion. The said entry is enumerated in Annexure-1. It is contended that such an entry of the year 1985 was communicated after long two years in 1987 and, further, this could not be treated as an adverse entry. It should be read as allegations and charges on which a departmental proceeding was contemplated to be drawn up against him. It is now well-settled and reference may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji V/s. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1622 , wherein it was held:- that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot 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 adverse 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 appeliant 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. 2. We cannot speculate, in the absence of a proper pleading whether the appeliant 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. 2. Here, in the present case, it is contended that the so-called adverse entry as mentioned in Annexure-1 is in fact in the nature of an allegation on which a departmental proceeding was contemplated to be drawn up. We find that the allegations remained untested because admittedly no departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner. His representation was rejected without any reasoned order as contained in Annexure-2. Therefore, it is difficult for us to speculate as to what were the grounds or reasons which prevailed upon the authorities to reject the representation of the petitioner denying his promotion with effect from the year 1985, Our attention has been drawn to statement made in paragraph 19 of the writ application wherein categorical statement is that the petitioner filed his appeal dated 17-6-1988 and again a reminder dated 5-9-1988 and it was learnt that the Chairman made certain queries on 24-8-1988 but then the matter was never placed before the Chairman. The statement has not been categorically denied except that respondents 1 and 2 in their counter-affidavit have stated that the same is denied. In absence of a categorical denial of the facts mentioned therein a mere word denial will mean nothing and it is difficult for us to speculate as to what was being denied. Again, the statement made in paragraph 21 of the writ application that the matter was not placed before the Chairman and no order had been obtained from the Chairman has remained unrebutted. 3. The fact remains that the so called adverse entry as contained in Annexure-1 of the year 1985 was communicated to the petitioner in the year 1987. The allegations made in Annexure-1 are pertaining to the year 1982. The departmental proceeding which was contemplated to be drawn up against the petitioner was never drawn up. The statement that the appeal was made before the Chairman, as stated in paragraph 19, has not been categorically denied. In these circumstances, we are left with no option but to direct the Chairman of the Board to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 17-6-1988 and 5-9-1988 in accordance with law and by a reasoned order. The statement that the appeal was made before the Chairman, as stated in paragraph 19, has not been categorically denied. In these circumstances, we are left with no option but to direct the Chairman of the Board to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 17-6-1988 and 5-9-1988 in accordance with law and by a reasoned order. Since pending this writ application certain action in the matter of promotion has been taken, the petitioner may as well file an additional or supplementary memorandum of appeal before the Chairman which shall also be considered along with the previous memorandum. We hope and trust that since this is a very old matter of promotion relating to an adverse entry of the year 1983, pertaining to allegations of the year 1982 the Chairman shall consider the same within a reasonable period of time and, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We make it clear that while disposing of this writ application we have not considered the merit of the case one way or the other since the appeal is pending before the Chairman who shall be at liberty to consider it one way or the other in accordance with law as also the rules and regulations of the Board.