S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Undaunted by the failure to get expunged an adverse entry recorded in his character roll in the year 1994-95, the representation against which entry was rejected by the Ad ministrative Committee of this Court vide its resolution dated 15-12-1995, which order stood affirmed with the rejection of the memorial submitted by him by the same committee, the petitioner who is an Additional District Judge has now ap proached this Court on its judicial side seeking the quashing of the orders passed by the Administrative Committee reject ing his representation and the memorial and further the quashing of the adverse entry referred to hereinabove. 2. In the order dated 9-4-1996 of this Court, the respondents were required to file a counter-affidavit within three weeks and were further required to produce the entire report of the Honble Inspecting Judge. In spite of the opportunity af forded, no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, when this case was taken up for hearing on 15-5-1996, the learned Stand ing Counsel representing the respondents produce the entire record relating to the proceedings culminating in the impugned orders. The entire record relating to the proceedings culminating in the impugned orders having been produced before us, the same was examined scrupulously. Since the relevant record has been produced and ex amined, no justification was found for grant ing any further time for filing the counter-affidavit which was sought for by the learned Standing Counsel. 3. We have heard Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and have perused that record. 4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The Dis trict Judge, Mirzapur who is the Reporting Officer had submitted his annual con fidential remarks in regard to the integrity, performance and conduct of Sri S. P. Lal, the Additional District Judge for the year 1994-95, indicating that he appeared to be a fair and impartial, cool-minded person who did not loose temper in Court and his private character was good. So far as the judgments delivered by the said officer were concerned, the Reporting Officer in dicated in his report that they were satis factory. The Reporting Officer on an over all assessment of the merit of the Officer, rated him as fair. So far as the judgments delivered by the said officer were concerned, the Reporting Officer in dicated in his report that they were satis factory. The Reporting Officer on an over all assessment of the merit of the Officer, rated him as fair. The reporting officer had further commented in his annual con fidential remarks that no verifiable com plaint had been received against the in tegrity of Sri S. P. Lal. 5. Sri S. P. Lal, the IInd Additional District Judge was authorised to deal with the cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The District Judge, Mirzapur the reporting officer vide his D. O. letter No. ST-12/95 dated 12-5-1995 had informed the Registrar of the Court that Sri S. P. Lal had carved out a new procedure for dealing with the bail ap plications in the cases where the bails had been rejected by the Magistrate and was entertaining such bail applications direct ly without their being presented in the Court of Sessions. The District Judge also made certain observations indicating cer tain procedural lapses on the part of the Sri S. P. Lal which according to the District Judge should have been avoided taking into account the old practice. The District Judge had further indicated his doubt about the fair work of the officer. 6. It maybe noticed that the aforesaid letter had been sent by the District Judge, the Reporting Officer subsequent to the submission of his annual recommendatory remarks for the year 1994-95 to which a reference has been made above. The Dis trict Judge has pointed out that the facts mentioned in his report submitted by him in regard to the disposal of the bail ap plications, transfer of cases and the altered procedure being adopted by Sri Lal ignor ing the old practice were brought to the notice of the Honble Inspecting Judge who appears to have sought for an ex planation from Sri Lal which was to be submitted by 12th July, 1995. It appears from the record that Sri Lal did not submit any explanation by the date fixed and fur ther, as noticed by Honble Inspecting Judge, Sri Lal did not have even the cour tesy of discussing the matter with the Ses sions Judge. It appears from the record that Sri Lal did not submit any explanation by the date fixed and fur ther, as noticed by Honble Inspecting Judge, Sri Lal did not have even the cour tesy of discussing the matter with the Ses sions Judge. Observing so in his note dated 6-9-1995 after taking into consideration certain decisions rendered by Sri Lal in the matter relating to the award of compensa tion in the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act wherein according to the Honble Inspecting Judge, the compensa tion had been disproportionately awarded to the claimants and further taking into con sideration certain directions issued by Sri S. P. Lal in the proceedings for the grant of bail, the Honble Inspecting Judge recorded an opinion that the judicial work of the Office concerned showed that he had no legal acumen and was incoherent and in discrete and his integrity was doubtful. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid note about the work and conduct of the petitioner, the Honble Inspecting Judge gave the fol lowing entry for the year 1994-95: "against 71 actual working days, the Of ficer gave an out post of 146. 39 days. Disposal is thus 206. 18%. The quality of the judicial work of this office is poor. He has no legal acumen and is indiscrete and incoherent in judicial behaviour that makes his integrity doubtful. Over all assessment poor. For reasons for the above opinion, see detailed note appended herewith. " 8. On 20th September, 1995, vide the D. O. No. C-1052-95, the adverse entry for the year 1994-95 which was communicated to the petitioner was to the following ef fect: "against 71 actual working days, the Of ficer gave an out turn of 146. 39 days. Disposal is thus 206. 18%. The quality of judicial work of this officer is poor. He has no legal acumen and is in-discrete and incoherent in judicial be haviour that makes his integrity doubtful. Over-all assessment; poor. " 9. It is significant to note at this stage that while communicating the adverse entry to the petitioner, the concluding sen tence that is "for reasons for the above opinion, see detailed note appended herewith was not included although not only this sentence but also the detailed opinion dated 6-9-1995 running into twelve pages had to be treated as part of the adverse entry. The result was that the basis on which the adverse entry was founded was not communicated to the petitioner. In the aforesaid situation as asserted in paragraph 8 of the writ peti tion, the petitioner proceeded on the as sumption that the adverse part of the an nual remark for the year 1994-95 was based only on the inspection note of the Honble Inspecting Judge which was recorded in the month of July, 1995. The petitioner therefore in his representation against the adverse entry, proceeding on the assumption that the facts noticed in the inspection note were the basis for the adverse remarks confined his repre sentation to what had been observed in the inspection note of July, 1995 at pages 13 to 16 thereof. 10. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Administra tive Committee. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a memorial against the order of rejection of his representation. In this memorial, also it had been stated that the annual inspection report recorded by Honble Inspecting Judge on the basis whereof the adverse entry had been made disclosed only two judgments rendered by the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act to which a reference has already been made above. The Administrative Commit tee its resolution dated 8-2-1996 required that the memorial submitted by the petitioner be examined by an Honble Judge of this Court making a nomination in that regard. The nominated Honble Judge was required to submit his report. 11. In his report, the Honble nominated Judge concluded that record ing of the adverse remarks against Sri S. P. Lal to the effect that integrity being doubtful or even other remark "indiscrete and incoherent in judicial behaviour" etc. if based only on two judgments in the Motor Accident Claims No. 91 of 1990 and 3 of 1991 will by itself would not be jus tified. However, the Honble nominated Judge farther observed that incoherence or judicial indiscreteness cannot be at tributable only on account of the findings recorded in the two judgments in question or disproportionate disbursement of com pensation to the claimant unless some thing more was found. 12. The Honble nominated Judge however, observed that the learned In specting Judge had not confined his remarks on the basis of the two cases only but on other judgments and orders. 12. The Honble nominated Judge however, observed that the learned In specting Judge had not confined his remarks on the basis of the two cases only but on other judgments and orders. It was indicated that the Honble Inspecting Judge had referred to in his note that judg ments rendered by Sri S. P. Lal on 15-5-1992 in matrimonial case No. 72 of 1991, the other judgment in S. T No. 264 of 1963 and bail Application No. 1066 of 1994 and had also adversely recorded his impres sions on that for coming to the conclusion that the Officer was indiscrete. The Honble nominated Judge took into ac count all those facts which the learned Inspecting Judge had noticed in his note dated 6-9-1995 had observed that Sri S. P. Lal had indulged in improper judicial con duct during the absence of the District and Sessions Judge referring to a numbers of transfers of bail application against the direction of the Court and that an explana tion was sought from him none was sub mitted. The Honble nominated Judge therefore, had concluded that adverse remarks if would have solely been based on the aforesaid motor accidents claims tribunal decisions as was said in the memorial was of some substance. How ever, since the adverse remarks were not being confined to the two cases but the other matters referred to in the note referred to above and the Administrative Committee, had earlier rejected the repre sentation on 7-10- 1995 and no new material in the memorial had been brought on record, there was no justifica tion for allowing the memorial for expunc-tion of the adverse entry as sought for. 13. The Administrative Committee vide its resolution dated 20-3- 1996 ac cepting the recommendations of the Honble nominated Judge rejected the memorial submitted by the petitioner. 14. 13. The Administrative Committee vide its resolution dated 20-3- 1996 ac cepting the recommendations of the Honble nominated Judge rejected the memorial submitted by the petitioner. 14. From what has been noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that atleast so far as that part of the note of Honble Inspecting Judge dated 6-9-95 referring to the judg ments rendered in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 91 of 1990 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 31 of 1990 and the obser vations in regard thereto which were made the basis for holding that the quality of the judicial work and conduct of the petitioner was far from satisfactory had not been ap proved by Honble the nominated Judge and further while accepting the recommenda tions of the Honble nominated Judge the Administrative Committee will be deemed to have accepted this portion of the recom mendation. However, the Honble nominated Judge had clearly observed that the adverse remarks against the petitioner were not confined on the aforesaid two cases but on the other matters as indicated in the note of the Honble Inspecting Judge dated 6-9-1995. 15. The question which arises for consideration therefore, is as to whether the representation of the petitioner against the adverse entry in question could be rejected without affording the petitioner an opportunity to put forward his case and submit an explanation in regard to the facts which were sought to be and actually utilised against him in making the adverse remarks in his character roll. 16. An Officers career depends lar gely on his character roll. It must be emphasised that the entry in the character roll of an officer which is nothing else except a performance appraisal should be based on fair and objective assessment and should be made judiciously without men tal reservations. The object behind the communication of the adverse entry is to ensure an opportunity to the concerned Officer to improve his performance. A mere recital of defects in his character roll is not enough for this purpose. Moreover, these defects should be mentioned if at tempts to eradicate them by oral or if necessary written exhortations and ad-monisions have not resulted in improve ment. The judicial independence of the Officer has not to be curbed in any way. A mere recital of defects in his character roll is not enough for this purpose. Moreover, these defects should be mentioned if at tempts to eradicate them by oral or if necessary written exhortations and ad-monisions have not resulted in improve ment. The judicial independence of the Officer has not to be curbed in any way. We must emphasise that normally no adverse entry should be made in the roll of the officer concerned without first giving him a warning or a chance to improve as it would not be fair to spoil the record con taining the remarks made in the character roll of an Officer which have to be reflec tive of his performance, character, con duct and qualities. 17. The relevant provisions con tained in Chapter III Rule 4 (B) of the Rules of the Court as amended provide as follows: " (B) Matters for Inspecting Judges.- (1 ). Review of judicial work of subordinate Courts, tribunals, district consumer forums and all other special Courts and control of their working in cluding inspection thereof, to record entries in the character rolls of the officers posted in the division assigned to the Inspecting Judge. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). Any adverse remarks or strictures made by an Inspecting Judge about judicial work, conduct or integrity of any officer under his charge will be communicated to the officer concerned, who may make his representations, if any, within a month and the same shall be placed before the Administrative Committee for consideration and decision. " 18. The rules of this Court as amended vide the notification dated 1-8-1994 indicated above provide that any ad verse remarks or stricture made by In specting Judge about judicial work, con duct or integrity of any Officer concerned will be communicated to the officer con cerned who may make the representation if any within a month and the same shall be placed before the Administrative Com mittee for consideration and decision. 19. The opportunity of submitting a representation provided for in the rule referred to herem above is aimed to secure fair play in action and prevent miscarriage of justice. One of the first principles of natural justice is that you must not permit one side to use means of influencing a decision which means are not known to the other side. The opportunity of submitting a representation provided for in the rule referred to herem above is aimed to secure fair play in action and prevent miscarriage of justice. One of the first principles of natural justice is that you must not permit one side to use means of influencing a decision which means are not known to the other side. It has to be emphasised that any person even if represented at any en quiry who is to be adversely affected by any decision therein should not be left in the dark as to the risk of the finding being made depriving him of any opportunity to adduce evidence or material of probative value which, had it been placed before the decision maker, might have dettered him from making the finding even though it cannot be predicated that it would in evitably have had that result. In its decision in the case of Mohan v. Air Newzealand Ltd. and others, 1984 (3) All ER 201 at 210, the Privy Council had made observations to the aforesaid effect. The ratio of that decision can be safely applied to the proceedings where the Administra tive Committee deals with a repre sentation contemplated under the Rule 4 (B) of Chapter III of the Rules of the Court. The Officer who is going to be ad versely affected must be informed of all the material which has been utilised against him so that he may have the opportunity to adduce the additional evidence or material of probative value which might have deterred the administrative commit tee from making the finding or from the opinion though it cannot be predicated that it would inevitably have had that result. 20. The opportunity of submitting a representation afforded as indicated hereinabove clearly contemplates a reasonable, opportunity. In the present case, when the entry for the year 1994-95 in question itself provided that for the reasons for the opinion recorded the detailed note appended there maybe seen. It was incumbent on the respondent authorities to communicate to the petitioner the detailed note dated 6-9-1995 containing the reasons for the opinion so that the petitioner could sub mit an effective representation. It was incumbent on the respondent authorities to communicate to the petitioner the detailed note dated 6-9-1995 containing the reasons for the opinion so that the petitioner could sub mit an effective representation. In this connection, it my be noticed that even the Honble nominated Judge in his recom mendations had observed that the petitioner had not brought to his notice anything on the matters other than the decisions in the Motor Accident Claim Petitions. We are surprised to note that how could the Administrative Committee expect that the petitioner could submit his explanation in regard to matters which were never brought to his notice. 21. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, we are of the con sidered opinion that the petitioner was seriously prejudiced on account of the failure on the part of the respondent authorities to communicate to him the note dated 6-9-1995 which had to be treated as a part of the adverse entry in question. We are further of the considered opinion that the petitioner could not be said to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his representation in regard to the matters which were sought to be relied upon and utilised against him for the opinion expressed in the adverse entry in question. 22. In view of our conclusions indi cated hereinabove, sufficient ground has been made out for interference by this Court. 23. In the result this writ petition succeeds in part and quashing the orders passed by the Administrative Committee dated 15-12-95 and 20-3-1996, the case is remitted back to the respondent authorities to afford the petitioner a fresh opportunity to submit his representation against the adverse entry in question sup- lying to him the copy of the note dated 6--1995 referred to therein. The Ad ministrative Committee shall reconsider the entire matter in the light of the obser vations made hereinabove. 24. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Petition party allowed. .