JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - Petitioner, who was appointed as Sub-later was promoted as Reserve Inspector/Inspector of Police on 15 January 1962 and Company Commander on 23 may 1970 but denied promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on the due date, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 2. The case of the petitioner is that right from inception he entered into service until the year 1978, when officers belonging to his batch were considered for promotion, he always earned encomiums from the department as evident from the character roll entries, embodied in annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition, yet he was not promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and, thus, he was forced to file the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. In Para. 5 of their counter-affidavit, it is stated by respondents I and 2 that the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was considered by the selection committee for promotion in the year 1978-79 along with other officers, but " the petitioner was not found up to the mark by the said selection committee hence his promotion was not recommended." Again in Para. 14 of the counter-affidavit the respondents stated: " The petitioner of course earned some cash awards but he also faced departmental proceedings for serious irregularities and misuse of official position committeed in the year 1973-74. As a result he was given a censure and also given a warning in the year 1932." In Para. 16 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents reiterated : The case of the petitioner for promotion was considered for the year 1977-78 and 1978-79 for which period he was eligible for consideration according to rules. But his case was not recommended for promotion being not found strictly fit on merits." From the aforesaid pleas raised in the counter-affidavit it is amply clear that the petitioner was due for promotion and the respondents did consider him for promotion in the year 1978-79, but he was denied promotion on account of the adverse character roll entry pertaining to the year 1973-74, which was finalised as late as in the year 1982. Therefore, the short question for consideration is whether the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police can be denied on the ground of adverse character roll entry relating to the year 1973-74, which was finalised and communicated in the year 1982. 4. It will be apposite to advert to important decisions exposing legal position as to which type of entry in the character roll can be read against. 5. In Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab and others [1980 - II L.L.N 143], the Supreme Court enunciated in Para. 17 at page 149 : ". . . 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 authority to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. . ." Again relying on this authority the Supreme Court in Amar Kant Choudhary v. State of Bihar and others [1964 - I L.L.N. 249], approvingly said in Para. 8 at page 232 : ". . . The decision of the selection committee recorded at its meetings in which the case of the appellant was considered are vitiated by reason of reliance being placed on the adverse remarks which were later on expunged. . ." 6. The dictum of the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji [1980 - II L.L.N. 143], (vide supra), was fur her approved and reiterated in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab [l987 - I L.L.N. 734], by the Supreme Court thus in Para. 9, at page 739 ; ". . . The object and purpose underlying the communication is to afford an opportunity to the employee to improve his work and conduct and to make representation to the authority concerned against those entries. If such a representation is made, it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation with a view to determine as to whether the contents of the adverse entries. are justified or not. If such a representation is made, it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation with a view to determine as to whether the contents of the adverse entries. are justified or not. Making of a representation is a valuable right to a Government employee and if the representation is not considered, it is bound to affect him in his service career, as in Government service grant of increment, promotion and ultimately premature retirement, all depend on the scrutiny of the service records. . . . " 7. From the aforesaid authorities, legal position is abundantly clear that no adverse character roll can be relied against an incumbent, unless he is given due opportunity of making the representation and unless the representation, if any made against the adverse entry, is considered after giving due opportunity of being heard. It is also clear from one of the aforesaid authorities that even if an adverse character roll is made the basis of denying promotion to a Government servant, he would be promoted if the adverse character roll entry is later on expunged. From these authorities, it is established that asking a Government servant to make a representation or giving an opportunity of making representation against adverse character roll is not a mere empty formality, because he is given an opportunity to make a representation against the adverse entry to enable him to explain the shortcoming. If his explanation is found to be correct then adverse character roll will stand obliterated. If the adverse character roll is maintained alter considering the representation, then the Government servant gets an opportunity to improve himself in future by not repeating the mistakes which he committed inc for which adverse character roll entry was made in this service record. 8. In the case on hand, promotion was denied to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1978, because of adverse character roll pertaining to the year 1973-74, which according to the respondents was finalised in the year 1932. It means that until the year 1982 no adverse character roll was finalised and in 1973-74 the respondents were simply contemplating to make an adverse character roll in the service record against the petitioner. It means that until the year 1982 no adverse character roll was finalised and in 1973-74 the respondents were simply contemplating to make an adverse character roll in the service record against the petitioner. When there was no adverse character roll until 1982, the question is whether the respondents were right in having denied the promotion to the petitioner at the appropriate time, i.e., in the year 1978, when the officers of the batch of the petitioner were considered for promotion. Undoubtedly, the legal position is that in the year 1978 promotion could not have been denied to the petitioner by the respondents, as there was no adverse character roll till then against the petitioner. Even if there were an adverse character roll in the year 1973-74, the respondents were enjoined upon to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities against the adverse character roll and until the disposal of the representation, if any made against such adverse character roll, no action could have been taken against the petitioner on the basis of adverse character roll, which was either not communicated or the representation against which. if any filed, was pending disposal. Otherwise also, adverse entry relating to the year 1973-74, which was finalised in 1982, loses its efficacy. The rationale behind the adverse entry is to give an opportunity to a Government servant to correct himself. Belated communication or finalisation of the adverse entry does not serve this purpose. The facts of the case of the petitioner are much stronger inasmuch as there was no adverse character roll in the year 1978 against him, as the adverse entry pertaining to the year 1973-74 was finalised only in the year 1982. 9. A hurried look at annexures 2 and 3 to the petitioner embodying the character roll entries for the years 1962 to 1979 is necessary to see the capacity or efficiency of the petitioner. His contention is that right from the beginning his performance was constantly appreciated by the department and always appreciative remarks were made in his character roll and never the department expressed any dissatisfaction in regard to his work. This contention is fully borne out from the perusal of the character roll entries, as stated in these annexures. His contention is that right from the beginning his performance was constantly appreciated by the department and always appreciative remarks were made in his character roll and never the department expressed any dissatisfaction in regard to his work. This contention is fully borne out from the perusal of the character roll entries, as stated in these annexures. Adverse character roll relating to the year 1973 74 but communicated in the year 1982 is reproduced in annexure 3 to the supplementary- counter-affidavit. In short the entry is that the petitioner did not pay requisite attention to the management of mess while he was posted as Company Commander in 12th Bn. P. A. C. at Fatehpur. For this lapse he was purportedly censured and warned. It is a matter of great regret that the meritorious service, which the petitioner rendered all through from 1962 to 1979 as per annexures 2 and 3 to the petition, were totally ignored on the single ground of mismanagement of the mess in the year 1973-74 when he was posted as Company Commander of 12th Bn. P. A.C. at Fatebpur. It shows that working of Police Department is far from satisfactory. A police officer, who by dint of his hard work earned encomium constantly over the years from 1962 to 1979, was denied promotion on trivial basis that he did not properly manage the P A. C. mess in the year 1973-74. Assuming that this adverse entry is worth relying on, even then promotion could not have been denied to the petitioner, as there was nothing adverse against him during the years 1973-74 to 1978. Firstly, a single entry visited by censure, a minor penalty. cannot eclipse the umpteen bright entries preceding and following lie dark year 1973-74. Secondly, if after a spotted year an incumbent constantly earns good or outstanding entries, then the bad entry in a single year and that too awarded several years before the date of consideration for promotion will stand effaced by virtue of several subsequent spotless entries. 10. Functioning of the Police Department leaves much to be desired. Secondly, if after a spotted year an incumbent constantly earns good or outstanding entries, then the bad entry in a single year and that too awarded several years before the date of consideration for promotion will stand effaced by virtue of several subsequent spotless entries. 10. Functioning of the Police Department leaves much to be desired. The police has already acquired unsavoury reputation in regard to public dealing, but his case shows that the department has not oily failed in taking ameliorating steps to boost up the morale of police force or improve their lot but administrative malaise the department is afflicted by, has the telling effect on the morale and efficiency of the disciplined force. Sooner the better the police dealing with the public directly set its house in order to inspire the confidence in the public as well as among the police personnels. 11. From the foregoing discussion it must be held that the petitioner was wrongly denied promotion in the year 1978 to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on account of 1973-74 remarks. 12. The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the matter of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 1978 within a month from the date of certified copy of this judgment is produced before them by the petitioner, without taking into consideration the adverse character roll of the year 1973-74. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs, assessed at Rs. 200.