By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and registered as Civil Rule No. 1028 of 1987/5 (K) of 1988 and Civil Rule No. 102 (K) of 1990. The writ petitioner is a member of the discipline J force, namely, Nagaland Police Service and it is really unfortunate that the petitioner has approached this Court for not getting promotion in due course. I hope and trust in future, the authority concerned would take appropriate action so that members of police force need not come to this Court to seek relief as this is necessary to keep up the morale, of the police force who are the guardian of law and order of the country. 2. The writ petitioner joined directly as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Nagaland Police Service. It may be stated that at the relevant time, there was no duly framed service Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution. Such Rules were framed only in the year 1977. 3. Though there was a criminal case against the petitioner which ended in final form ie during investigation, the investigating machinery did not find any case against the petitioner, however, in view of the criminal investigation, the petitioner was kept under suspension and during the period of suspension, a fresh departmental proceeding was drawn up. 4. By the final order dated 14.4.1981 the following punishments were imposed - (i) The pay of Shri Ch. Basant Kumar Singh shall be reduced to the lower stage of Rs. 1,100.00 Rupees eleven hundred) only in the time scale of pay of Rs. .00-50-1300 (EB)-50-1500/-pm for a period of 3 years from the date of his resumption of duty (ii) The Officer shall not earn increment of pay during the aforesaid period of 3 years. (iii) This reduction will not have the effect postponing the future increment of his pay on expiry of the period of 3 years. This order is available in the counter-affidavit filed in Civil Rule No. 102 (K) of 1990. On the same date ie 14.4.1981 the suspension order was also revoked and the period of suspension was treated as on duty for all purposes except for pay and allowances which would be the same as already drawn during the period of suspension. This order is available in the counter-affidavit filed in Civil Rule No. 102 (K) of 1990. On the same date ie 14.4.1981 the suspension order was also revoked and the period of suspension was treated as on duty for all purposes except for pay and allowances which would be the same as already drawn during the period of suspension. This order is available at Annexure C to the first writ petition filed by the present petitioner which was registered as Civil Rule No. 571 of 1984. I may only add here that by not allowing the writ petitioner to draw any amount more than his subsistence allowance during the period of suspension by the above order is bad in law inasmuch as the law is well settled that before passing such order the delinquent officer has to be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause, which was not done in the case in hand. But as this matter has not been challenged in the present two writ petitions, I am not passing any order in this aspect. 5. As stated above, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as Civil Rule No. 5/1 of 1984 and it was disposed of by order dated 13.9.84 which is available at Annexure B/C of the writ petition registered as Civil Rule No. 1028 of 1987. The writ petition was closed as an assurance was given by the learned Advocate General of the State that the representation of the writ petitioner would be considered. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by memorandum dated 1.2.1985 issued by the Home Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Nagaland vide Annexure C to the writ petition registered as Civil Rule No. 1028 of 1987/5 (K) of 1988. Paragraph 3 of the said letter is relevant for the present purpose and it is quoted below : "In view of the position explained above, Shri BK Singh is entitled to confirmation in the Nagaland Police (Class I) Service with effect from 23.4.1984 and accordingly his case for confirmation is being processed. As regards his claim for promotion, he will be considered for the ex-cadre post of DIG of Police as and when vacancy occurs." 6. As till date, the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, the present two petitions have been filed. As regards his claim for promotion, he will be considered for the ex-cadre post of DIG of Police as and when vacancy occurs." 6. As till date, the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, the present two petitions have been filed. It may be stated that the writ petitioner was confirmed with effect from 1.8.1988 vide notification dated 8.8.88 which is available at Annexure I to the counter filed in the above Civil Rule No. 1028 of 1987/5 (K) of 1988. 7. The substance of both the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner could not be promoted as his record was not upto the mark and in other words the Annual Confidential Reports for 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1987 were not upto the mark. 7 Heard Mr. Bedi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. I.Jamir learned Govt. Advocate. 8. At the time of hearing the personal file of the writ petitioner has been made available along with the note sheets. Normally note sheets are not available to be perused by others. But the learned Government Advocate agreed to allow Mr, Bedi to peruse the note sheets and it was duly recorded by this Court vide order dated 28.7.93 passed in Civil Rule No. 1028 of 1987/ 5 (K) of 1988. I have also perused the note sheets and I find that the file was put up before the Chief Minister of the State through the Chief Secretary and in the minutes recorded on 16.6.86, it was decided to promote the writ petitioner to the next higher post i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police vide note sheet at page 55. From the note sheets at page 47, I find that it was also decided that the petitioner would be confirmed wef 23.4.84. But for the reasons not known and it is also not clear from the record why this order was not communicated. I also find from the note sheets that subsequently the higher official was misled inasmuch as it was recorded that the effect of the punishment imposed on the petitioner would be over only on 27.1.87 who was absolutely incorrect. Presumably, because of the above notes and orders, promise was made by the above letter to the Home Commissioner regarding confirmation of the writ petitioner and also his promotion to higher post. Presumably, because of the above notes and orders, promise was made by the above letter to the Home Commissioner regarding confirmation of the writ petitioner and also his promotion to higher post. I do not want to say anything more regarding subsequent promotion of other junior officers for obvious reasons. 9. Therefore in view of the above order of the Home Commissioner and the order of the highest authority the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police on or after 16.6.86 and should have been confirmed wef 23.4.1984, 10. Regarding Annual Confidential Reports, I find that all the Annual Confidential Reports have not been produced. Along with the counter affidavit in Civil Rule No. 1028 of 1987/5 (K) of 1^88, Annual Confidential Reports of the writ petitioner for the years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 have been annexed. The Annual Confidential Report for the year 1982 is not available. In the ACR for the year 1981 I find no remark by the Reviewing Officer. Simi­larly, in the ACR for the year 1983 there is remark of the Reviewing Officer. 11. According to the writ petitioner, the adverse remarks in the ACRs were communicated to him just on the eve of promotion and that he has been superseded by 8 officers of Nagaland Police Service. 12. It has been admitted by the respondents in the counter filed in Civil Rule No. 102 (k) of 1990 vide paragraph 18 that the representations filed against the adverse remarks by the writ petitioner were not disposed of. An interesting statement has been made in paragraph 22 of the said counter which runs as follows :- "......Although the petitioner had no adverse remarks of serious nature in his ACRs when his merit was compared with the merit of the other eligible officers his merit was found lower because of which he was not recommended for promotion." In view of the above statement, this Court directed the learned Govt. Advocate to produce all the Annual Confidential Reports, but unfortunately only some ACRs were produced. 13. Before I proceed further, let me consider the law regarding adverse entry in the ACR. Advocate to produce all the Annual Confidential Reports, but unfortunately only some ACRs were produced. 13. Before I proceed further, let me consider the law regarding adverse entry in the ACR. 14 In Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 369, it was held by the Apex Court that the adverse entry in the ACR cannot be acted upon till opportunity for representation against has been afforded and the representation was duly considered. 15. la Brij Mohan Singh Chopra vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 188 . the Apex Court held that whenever and adverse entry is awarded to a Gover­nment servant, it must be communicated to him for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to improve his work and to make representation. It was also held that if such a representation is made it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation with a view to determine as to whether (he contents of the adverse entries are justified or not. According to their Lordships 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. 16. In the State of Haryana vs. PC Wadhwa, (1987) 2 SCC 602 , the Apex Court held that the object of making and communication of adverse remarks is to give to the officer concerned an opportunity to improve his performances, conduct and character, as the case may be and that the adverse remarks shall not be understood in terms of punishment, but really it should be taken as an advice. It was further held that the whole object of the making of adverse remarks would be lost if they are communicated to he officer concerned after an inordinate delay. 17. TLe Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kehar Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1991 (5) SLR 658 held that representation against adverse remarks if pending, adverse remarks cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the above decision. 18. 17. TLe Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kehar Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1991 (5) SLR 658 held that representation against adverse remarks if pending, adverse remarks cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the above decision. 18. Coming to the case in hand in addition to the fact that all the ACRs were not made available and that apart there are defects in the ACRs as stated above, the adverse remarks were communicated after considerable lapse of time and that too at the time of consideration for promotion. The respondents have admitted that the representations filed by the petitioner against the said adverse remarks are still pending. Therefore, the respondents erred in law in not promoting the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police and allowing his juniors to supersede him. The respondents ought to have discarded the adverse remarks while considering the promotion of the writ petitioner to the next higher grade. 19. Mr. Bedi has urged that the ACRs in which adverse remarks were recorded were written by the officers junior to him after their pro notion to the higher grade. I need not express any opinion in this regard as in my opinion the writ petitioner is entitled to get relief on the grounds stated above. I may only record here that all the ACRs where adverse remarks were recorded shall not be considered by any authority if there is any occasion in future. I say so on the ground stated above and the defects in the ACRs. 20. It may be stated that the IPS Cadre was constituted in January, 1989 though the service was constituted wef 1.4.1986. According to Mr. Bedi there are four posts of DIG in the cadre of IPS. Mr. Bedi has also stated that at present there are 8 posts of equivalent rank. Therefore there will be no diffi­culty for this Court to pass appropriate orders in case of the writ petitioner. 21. Another fact which is quite surprising is that all the officers who were junior to the writ petitioner were promoted temporarily subject to regularisation by the DPC. In this connection I may refer to Annexure 1 to the courier filed in Civil Rule No.1028 of 1987/5 (K) of 1988. 21. Another fact which is quite surprising is that all the officers who were junior to the writ petitioner were promoted temporarily subject to regularisation by the DPC. In this connection I may refer to Annexure 1 to the courier filed in Civil Rule No.1028 of 1987/5 (K) of 1988. But in spite of direction given by this Court no proceeding of the Departmental Promotion Committee has been placed before this Court except the minutes of such Committee held on 17 7.1990, Therefore, lean safely hold that officers who were junior to the writ petitions were promoted without processing their cases by duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. 22. In Civil Rule No. 102 (K) of 1990, the writ petitioner has claimed his selection in the initial constitution of the IPS Cadre for Nagaland. This is outside the purview of this Court in view of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. 1985. The writ petitioner may seek redress in the appropriate forum for his selection in the initial constitution of IPS Cadre. Accordingly, it is directed that the said Civil Rule No. 102 (K, of 1990 may be transferred to the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal at Gauhati and for the purpose of this Court, this may be treated as disposed of. However, office shall keep copies of all the records, namely, the petition, counter affidavit. Annexures etc. in the record of Civil Rule No. 1028 of 1987/5 (K) of 1988 as in this judgment, I have quoted from the counter affidavit filed in that ease. 23. In Misc. Case No. 116 of 1987 by order dated 21.9.87, a Division Bench of this Court, in which I was party, it was directed that during the penuency of the Civil Rule, namely, Civil Rule No. 1028 of 1987/5 (K) of 1988 if any promotion is made in supersession of the petitioner that will be subject to the outcome of the Civil Rule. 24. In view of the above interim order, there will be no difficulty to pass an appropriate orders in this regard. 25. Situated thus, I direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as confirmed wef 23,4.1984 and the seniority list shall be accordingly modified. The writ petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police wef 16.6.1986 notionally, but he shall not be entitled to get any back salary till date. 25. Situated thus, I direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as confirmed wef 23,4.1984 and the seniority list shall be accordingly modified. The writ petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police wef 16.6.1986 notionally, but he shall not be entitled to get any back salary till date. From today, onwards, he shall be posted as DIGP in a post which is not in the cadre of IPS and he shall be entitled to draw the salary of the DIGP from today i.e. 30.7.1993. While fixing the salary of DIGP notionally, the increments shall be counted from the above date ie 16.6J986 without any arrear payment. If necessary an additional post shall be created by the respondents to accommodate the petitioner in the post of DIGP outside the IPS Cadre. The above period of notional promotion shall be counted for all other service benefits including pension and pensioner benefits. T further direct that the adverse entries made in the ACRs for the relevant years shall not be taken into consideration by any authority for any purpose in view of what has been stated above. With the above direction both the petitions are disposed of with further direction that the Civil Rule No. 102 (K) of 1990 may be transferred to the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal at Gauhati as stated above. No costs.