Judgment S. B. Sinha, G. C. Bharuka, JJ. 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police and promote him therein with effect from March 1989 from which date his juniors had allegedly been promoted. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner is holding the substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police. He successfully completed his physical training course and obtained 12 position in the merit list. Allegedly he has obtained 80 rewards to his credit and hew minor punishments. In the gradation list of the Sub-Inspector of Police, the position of petitioner is at Serial no.135. 4. The petitioner has contended that in terms of Rule 649 of the bihar Police Manual, the Inspector General Section Board (for short (I. G. Board) is the Competent Authority for consideration of the cases eligible candidate for promotion, that the rank of Inspector of Police. In the meeting of the Inspector General selection Board on 28-3-1990 which is contained in Annexur,e-l to the writ application, the petitioner case could not be considered for want of records and it was resolved that a supplementary meeting of the I. G. Board would be held and if the petitioners found fit for promotion they would retain their respective seniorities. 5. A supplementary I. G. Board meeting was held on 7-2-1991 and 8-2-1991 and again on 27-2-1991 and 14-3-1991 and 15-3-1991. The petitioners case was again kept pending owing to alleged pendency of the departmental enquiry bearing No.228 purported to have been initiated under Rule 828 (c) by the Bihar Police Manual which provides for holding summary enquiry. 6. In that meeting also it was resolved that if the petitioner is found fit, he would retain his seniority vis-a-vis those persons who were promoted earlier. 7. The petitioner has contended that although his promotion was withheld purported to be for the reasons of pendency of a departmental enquiry, the same had already been concluded. 8. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. Again a meeting of the i. G. Board was held on 8-10-1991, 21-1-1992 and 23-1-1992. 7. The petitioner has contended that although his promotion was withheld purported to be for the reasons of pendency of a departmental enquiry, the same had already been concluded. 8. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. Again a meeting of the i. G. Board was held on 8-10-1991, 21-1-1992 and 23-1-1992. The petitioner came to learn that he had not been considered for promotion on the ground that there had bceh some adverse remarks against him for the year 1985 recorded by the Raj Vardhan Sharma. The petitioner thereafter filed another representation on 11-11-1991 which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. 9. The petitioner, was communicated with an order dated 18-2-1992 whereby he was informed that he had been found unfit on the ground of service records and C. C. Rs. etc. The said order dated 18-2-1992 is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. 10. The petitioners has contended that the purported adverse remarks entered in his service Book by Sri Raj Bardhan Sharma, the then Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, was never communicated to him. 11. The petitioner has further contended that in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 726 of the Bihar Police Manual, only a major punishment disentitles a person or an Officer for consideration for promotion for a period of three years, which read with police Order 99 would be reckoned from the date for commission of such lapses. 12. The petitioner has filed an application for amendment of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the Annual Confidential report for the period 26-3-1985 to 1-8-1985 was communicated to him by a Memo No.812 dated 15-5-1992 which is contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application. 13. The petitioner by reason of the aforementioned application for amendment of the writ petition has questioned the said order on the ground that the adverse remarks of the year 1985 could not have been communicated to him in the year 1992. 14. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in this case. 15. However, the file relating to the departmental proceeding of the petitioner had been placed before us. 16. From a perusal of the records of the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of censure. 17. 14. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in this case. 15. However, the file relating to the departmental proceeding of the petitioner had been placed before us. 16. From a perusal of the records of the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of censure. 17. However a proposal was made to enhance the punishment imposed upon the petitioner wherefore recommendations were made for issuance of a show-cause notice. The said show-cause notice was directed to be issued on 30th July, 1992 but there is nothing on records to show that the same has yet been issued. 18. In this situation, evidently, the only punishment which has sofar been imposed upon the petitioner was the punishment of censure. It does not stand to any reason as to why the Annual Confidential Report in respect of the petitioner for the period 26-3-1985 to 1-8-1985 had been communicated to the petitioner by reason of Annexure-8 to the application for amendment of the writ petition only on 15-5-1992, Such a delay in communicating the order of Annual Confidential Report cannot but be condemned. 19. In Gurdial Singh Fijji V/s. State of Punjab and others, reported in air 1979 SC 1622 , it has been held as follows :- "the principle is well settled 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 period 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. " 20. In State of Haryana V/s. P. C. Wadhwa, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1201 , the Supreme Court depricated the| linderly of communication of adverse remarks after a long time, holding ;- "the whole object of the making and communication of adverse remarks is to give to the Officer concerned an opportunity to improve his performances conduct of character, as the case may be. The adverse remarks should not be understood in terms of punishment, but really it should be taken as an advise to the officer concerned, so that he can act in accordance with the advice and improve his service career. The whole object of the making of adverse remarks would be lost if they are communicated to the officer concerned after an inordinate delay. In the instant case, it was communicated to the respondent after twenty seven months. It is true that the provisions of Rules 5, 6, 6a and 7 are directory and not mandatory, but that does not mean that the directory provisions need not be complied with even substantially. Such provisions may not be complied with strictly, and substantial compliance will be sufficient. But, where compliance after an inordinate delay would be against the spirit and object of the directory provision, such compliance would not be substantial compliance. In the instant case, while the provisions of Rules 5, 6, 6-A and 7 require that everthing including the communication of the adverse remarks should be completed within a period of seven months, this period cannot be stretehed Jo twenty seven months, simply because these rules are directory, without serving any purpose consistent with the spirit and objective of these rules. We need not, however, dilate upon the question any more and consider whether on the ground of inordinate and unreasonable delay, the adverse remarks against the respondent should be struck down or not, and suffice it to say that we do not approve of the inordinate delay made in communicating the adverse remarks to the respondent. " 21. A learned Single Judge of this court also in Bhagwan Prasad, sinha, V/s. The State of Bihar and others in CWJC No.5177 of 1989 disposed of on 19th September, 1990 in a similar situation quashed an order of the state Government rejecting the representation of the petitioner which was made against the adverse remarks communicated to him. 22. It is also well known that in terms of the police Order No 226 of 1981 read with police Order No.99 punishment awarded takes effect from the date of occurrence and not from the date of the punishment. 23. This aspect of the matter has been considered by one of us (G. C. Bharuka, J) in Ram Anugrah Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1992 BBCJ Page 440. 23. This aspect of the matter has been considered by one of us (G. C. Bharuka, J) in Ram Anugrah Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1992 BBCJ Page 440. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that the consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion could not have been with-held either owing to the entry in the annual confidential Roll of the petitioner for the period 26-3-1985 to 1-8-1985 or owing to award of punishment of censure against the petitioner. 24. However, we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the action initiated as against the petitioner for enhancement of the said punishment as the same is not subject matter of consideration of this writ application. We are also not expressing any opinion as at the effect of inordinate delay in communicating the adverse remarks in view of the fact that no rule fixing time limit for communicating such orders has been brought to our notice. We may, however, observe that as the action of the State in all fields must be reasonable, communication of adverse remarks must also be done within a reasonable time. 25. In this situation, -this application is allowed, and the respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner on its own merits keeping in view the observations made herein before. 26. This writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore, but in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.