JUDGMENT P.K. Sarin, J. - This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the adverse entries in the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1993-94, as contained in Annexure-1, Annexure-4 and Annexure-6 respectively. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Bihar and the adverse entry for the period 1989-90 and 1990-91 pertains to his service as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police and the entry relating to the year 1993-94 relates to his duties as Additional Superintendent of Police. The entry of 1989-90, as contained in Annexure-1, shows that he was graded as an officer of outstanding category and his work in the maintenance of law and order was found to be commendable but in the office work he was found to be lagging and it has been noted that he failed to make improvement despite repeated directions. The petitioner made representation against the said entry detailing the work done by him in the office. It was also stated that the entry does not contain the details about the directions issued. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Government by letter dated 23.3.1996. 3. The entry for the work for the period from 1.4.1990 to 14.10.1990 (relating to the period 1991), as contained in Annexure-4, shows that although he was found to be vigilant for resolving the problem of law and order but office work remained pending excessively and effective action was not taken against criminal gangs of serious offences. The petitioner made representation against the said adverse entry also (copy at Annexure-5). He had given details about the work done by him in curbing crime. This representation was also rejected by the Government. 4. Annexure-6 is the entry relating to the year 1993-94. It has graded the petitioner as an average officer. It has also been remarked that in a few instances he was found lax in taking prompt decision. The petitioner made representation against the said adverse entry also (copy at Annexure-7) but his representation was rejected by the Government by letter dated 20.3.1996 (copy at Annexure-8). 5. It has graded the petitioner as an average officer. It has also been remarked that in a few instances he was found lax in taking prompt decision. The petitioner made representation against the said adverse entry also (copy at Annexure-7) but his representation was rejected by the Government by letter dated 20.3.1996 (copy at Annexure-8). 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entry for the years 1989-90, and 1990-91 were communicated belatedly inasmuch as the entry for the year 1989-90 was communicated by letter dated 15th March, 1993 (Annexure-1) and the entry for the period 1.4.1990 to 14.10.1990 was communicated by letter dated 9th March, 1995, as would be evident by Annexure-4. It has been contended that the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of communicating adverse entries after long delay. It is contended that the entire purpose of entries is defeated if the same is communicated after long delay. 6. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Amar Kant Choudhary vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1984 Supreme Court 531). In the said case the Apex Court made observation as to what procedure should be followed in the matter of maintaining confidential roll. After noting the present procedure the Apex Court observed that the Government may consider the introduction of a system in which the officer, who has to make entries in the confidential roll, may be required to record his remarks in the presence of the officer, against whom remarks are proposed to be made after giving him an opportunity to explain any circumstance that may appear to be against him with the right to make representation to higher authorities against any adverse remarks. The Apex Court observed that this course may obviate many times totally baseless remarks being made in the confidential roll and would minimise the unnecessary suffering to which the officer concerned will be exposed. The Apex Court pointed out another system also in which the officer who records the confidential remarks may be asked to serve a copy of such remarks on the officer concerned before the confidential roll is submitted to the higher authorities so that his representation against the remarks may also reach the higher authority shortly after the confidential roll is received, as this would curtail the delay in taking action on the representation. Apex Court further observed that suspension, adverse remarks in confidential rolls and frequent transfers from one place to another are ordered or made many a time without justification and without giving a reasonable opportunity to the officer concerned and such actions surely result in demoralization of the services. It is regrettable that despite the observation made by the Apex Court in the said case, which arose out of a litigation in Bihar, the State has not taken care to follow the advice as given by the Apex Court in the said case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. P.C. Wadhwa (A.I.R. 1987 SC 1201) wherein it has been observed that whole object of the making and communication of remarks is to give the officer an opportunity to improve his performances, conduct or character as the case may be Court further observed that the adverse remarks should not be understood in terms of punishment but really it should be taken as an advice to the officer concerned so that he could 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 said case before the Supreme Court the adverse remarks were communicated after twenty seven months. There were rules applicable in the State of Haryana to the concerned employee which required that everything including the communication of the adverse remarks should be completed within a period of seven months. The Apex Court held that although the provision is directory but it cannot be defeated by stretching the period to twenty seven months as that would not be consistent with the spirits and objectives of the rules. 8. The State Government of Bihar although has not framed rules in respect of the adverse entries but has issued Government order dated 30th April, 1979. A copy of the said government order has been filed as Annexure-10 which has been issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. It lays down the directions regarding recording of annual confidential remarks. The State Government of Bihar although has not framed rules in respect of the adverse entries but has issued Government order dated 30th April, 1979. A copy of the said government order has been filed as Annexure-10 which has been issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. It lays down the directions regarding recording of annual confidential remarks. It requires that the Reporting Officer should submit his remarks by 30th June and the Reviewing officers shall forward the same with his remarks by 15th July and further time has been fixed for making representations and for disposal of the same. In the present case, the entry for the year 1990-91 was communicated by letter dated 9th March, 1995 (Annexure-4) which shows that it was communicated after a delay of about four years. The objective of recording adverse entries is in the nature of advice so that the concerned officer may improve his working and that objective is defeated if the entries are communicated after a gap of three or four years. In the present case, we find that entries for the work of the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 were communicated to him when he had already been promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police. Thus, the communication of the entry lost its significance and it could not have been expected that the petitioner would have made improvement in his working as Deputy Superintendent of Police on being communicated of such entries. 9. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Kashinath Kher & ors. (JT 1996(2) 13 SC 569) again reiterated that the object of writing confidential report is two fold i.e. to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiency and to inculcate discipline. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. It was further observed that the Controlling Officer should show objectively, impartially and fair assessment without any prejudices whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. 10. It was further observed that the Controlling Officer should show objectively, impartially and fair assessment without any prejudices whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. 10. The Supreme Court again in the case of Sukhdeo vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division; (1996) 5 SCC 103 drew attention to its observation in the State Bank of India vs. Kasinath Kher (supra). In another case of Sri M.A. Raja Shekhar vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (JT 1996 (7) SC 708) the Apex Court observed that specific instances in which the concerned official did not perform his duty satisfactorily must be pointed out so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. It was observed that he should be given an opportunity in the cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. In the case of M.A. Raja Shekhar (supra) the entry given was "competent, good at getting work done, but dose not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma". The Apex Court observed that the remark that he "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma" must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did not perform the duty satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. The court found that no such opportunity was given and, in these circumstances, the adverse remarks contained in the said entry were ordered to be expunged by the Apex court. 11. In the case of Sukhdeo vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division (supra) the case was of compulsory retirement which was based amongst other things on an adverse entry also. In the said case the concerned remarks contained entry that the officer was industrious, his capacity to get work done by subordinate was good, his relationship with the colleagues and public was good general intelligence satisfactory. However, in the column of technical ability it was reported to be not satisfactory and administrative ability including judgment, initiative and drive 'not satisfactory'. The integrity and character was remarked to be good and it was also remarked that the officer was fit to continue in service and was fit for promotion. However, in the column of technical ability it was reported to be not satisfactory and administrative ability including judgment, initiative and drive 'not satisfactory'. The integrity and character was remarked to be good and it was also remarked that the officer was fit to continue in service and was fit for promotion. However, in the column for general assessment, the entry was made that the officer was "irregular, rarely found at headquarter, poor performance in a recovery work, bad in public image". The adverse remarks contained in entry was considered for compulsorily retiring the officer. The Apex Court set aside the order of compulsory retirement with the remark that the power exercised by the Controlling Officer was per se illegal. The Apex Court further observed that it would be salutary that the Controlling officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior sufficient opportunity in writing by informing him of the deficiency he noticed for improvement and inspite of the opportunity given if the officer/employee does not improve then it would be an obvious fact and would form material basis in support of the adverse remarks. 12. Keeping in view the observation made by the Apex Court in the cases of Amar Kant Choudhary, P.C. Wadhwa, Sukhdeo and Sri Raja Shekhar (supra) we may now consider the present case on its facts. 13. The entry for the year 1989-90 graded the petitioner as outstanding officer. His work in maintenance of law and order was found to be commendatory. However, adverse remark was given 'he lacked in office work and did not make improvement despite repeated directions'. The entry itself does not contain any detail of the directions given to the petitioner during that period nor give any details about the deficiency in office work. In the counter-affidavit also, no details about .the deficiency in office work or the instances of repeated directions have been given although the petitioner had asserted in his representation and also in the present petition that no direction was ever given to him and that there was no deficiency in the office work. He gave details of the work done by him in his representaion (Annexure-2). It has not been controverted specifically in the counter affidavit. He gave details of the work done by him in his representaion (Annexure-2). It has not been controverted specifically in the counter affidavit. Thus adverse remarks in the entry for the year 1989-90 appear to be based on no data and without there being any date to back the adverse entry the same cannot be maintained. Following the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sri M.A. Raja Shekhar (supra) the said adverse remarks may be ordered to be expunged. 14. The entry for the year 1990-91 shows that it was found that the petitioner was vigilant in solving the problem of law and order. However, adverse remark was made that the office work remained pending excessively and proper action was not taken against the groups of criminals involved in serious cases. This entry also does not give any detail as to in what case the action was not taken by the petitioner. It also does not point out as to what work remained pending in the office. The petitioner in his representation against the said entry vide Annexure-5 refuted the adverse remarks and gave details of the work done by him, including the action taken in curbing crime. In the counter-affidavit no instances have been given where the officer was found lacking in taking effective steps against the gangs of criminals. No details have been given in the counter affidavit regarding the deficiency in the office work. It has also not been shown that the data and the information furnished by the representation was wrong. In these circumstances, the statement of the petitioner that the said entries are arbitrary and are not based on any data cannot be said to be without force. It may also be pointed out that it has not been shown that before giving remarks in the said adverse entry during the period in question the petitioner was ever pointed out any deficiency in his work so as to make improvement in the same. In the circumstances, the adverse remarks contained in the entry for the year 1990-91 are also liable to be expunged. 15. The entry for the year 1993-94 contained adverse remark that in few instances the petitioner was found lax in taking prompt decision. No instances were pointed out in the entry itself. In the circumstances, the adverse remarks contained in the entry for the year 1990-91 are also liable to be expunged. 15. The entry for the year 1993-94 contained adverse remark that in few instances the petitioner was found lax in taking prompt decision. No instances were pointed out in the entry itself. The petitioner made representation against the said entry giving details of the work done by him and showing that there was no laxity. In the counter affidavit it has not been stated as to in what instances the petitioner was found lax in taking prompt decisions. Thus, neither the entry nor the counter-affidavit discloses any instance where the petitioner was found lax in taking prompt decisions in the period 1993-94. In the circumstances the adverse remark contained in the said entry also appears to be without basis and appears to be arbitrary and is liable to be expunged. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the adverse remarks contained in the impugned entries for the year 1989-90 (Annexure-1), 1990-91 (Annexure-4) and for the year 1993-94 (Annexure-6) are ordered to be expunged. The writ application is allowed accordingly.