ORDER : 1. The only question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') was justified in interfering with the adverse remarks that have been made in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the respondent for the year 1986-87. 2. The respondent was employed as Inspector in the Commercial Taxes Department of the Government of Orissa. In respect of the year 1986-87, the following remarks were made in his ACR: "(a) Initiative and resourcefulness - lacking, (b) Total failure in detection, (c) No initiative or zeal, (d) Does not deserve responsible posting, (e) Needs constant goading, (f) His work was not at all satisfactory and (g) Cannot be relied upon." 3. The respondent submitted a representation against the said remarks. On the said representation of the respondent the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ganjam Range, who was the reporting officer in respect of the said remarks, sent his comments dated 26-6-1989. After considering the said comments, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes sent his recommendation to the Government wherein he expressed the view that he did not see any justification for expunction of the adverse remarks. The representation of the respondent was, therefore, rejected by the State Government. The respondent moved the Tribunal, by filing Original Application No. 569 of 1990, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 14-1-1992. 4. One of the reasons that has weighed with the Tribunal in setting aside the adverse remarks against the respondent is that the Commercial Taxes Officer (for short 'CTO'), who had made the remarks, was prejudiced against the respondent. In that regard the Tribunal has referred to the averments in para 3 of the petition filed by the respondent that being an honest officer the appellant could not pander to the illegal demands made by the then CTO under whom he worked and that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties before the Tribunal, there was no specific denial of the said allegations regarding illegal demands said to have been made by the CTO. We have perused the said averments contained in para 3 of the petition filed by the respondent. In our opinion, the said allegations are extremely vague and do not contain any particulars about the nature of the demands and when the said demands were made. We have perused the said averments contained in para 3 of the petition filed by the respondent. In our opinion, the said allegations are extremely vague and do not contain any particulars about the nature of the demands and when the said demands were made. Moreover, the respondent did not make any complaint about any such demands in the representation submitted by him against the adverse remarks. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in giving importance to the said averments in the petition and to hold that the adverse remarks are vitiated by extraneous considerations. Moreover, the CTO was the reporting authority and under the prescribed procedure the remarks made by the reporting authority are considered by the countersigning authority who is the next superior officer and in the present case the countersigning authority did not disagree with remarks made by the CTO as the reporting authority. No allegation of any bias has been made by the respondent against the countersigning authority. The adverse remarks have also been examined by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes while considering the representation of the respondent and agreeing with the views of the reporting officer, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has observed: "The Range Officer who is the next superior officer also did not form any favourable impression about Shri Khatua and has graded him as of average calibre." 5. The adverse remarks made against the respondent cannot, therefore, be held to be vitiated on account of the averment in the petition that the Reporting Officer (CTO) was being prejudiced against the respondent. 6. The Tribunal has also expressed the view that the adverse remarks were not justified in view of the substantiation report and the comments sent by the Reporting Officer. In taking this view the Tribunal has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction. While exercising the power of judicial review in respect of adverse remarks in the ACR, the Tribunal does not function as an appellate forum in respect of the assessment made by a superior officer about the performance of an employee working under him. Such assessment is made by the reporting authority which is subject to scrutiny by the countersigning authority as well as by the higher authority which considers the representation of the employee against the remarks. Such assessment is made by the reporting authority which is subject to scrutiny by the countersigning authority as well as by the higher authority which considers the representation of the employee against the remarks. In the present case, we find that the performance of the respondent had been assessed not only by the Reporting Officer but also by the countersigning authority and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, while dealing with the representation of the respondent, has agreed with the said assessment. The Tribunal was in error in interfering with the said assessment as reflected in the adverse remarks made in the ACR of the respondent. 7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and OA No. 569 of 1990 filed by the respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal allowed.