Honble MUKHERJI, CJ. – The writ petitioner Satish Kumar Sood has filed the writ application praying for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents to expunge the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports as recorded in Annexures 6 and 7 to the Writ application and also made ancillary prayers against the respondent No.2 against whom there were allegations of perso- nal bias and enmity. (2). The remarks as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application were pertaining to the years 1984-85 and the same were communicated to the writ petitioner on 2.6.1989 by the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Jaipur, which inter- alia read as follows :– 1- deZpkjh viuh M~;wVh ds izfr mnklhu ,oa fuf"Ø;A 2- dk;Z dh vko;drkvksa ds vuq#i larks"kizn Kku dk vHkko] vf/kd lh[kus dh vfHkyk"kk u j[kus okykA 3- dnkfpr gh y{;ksa dh iwfrZ djus okyk] dk;Z lEiknu ds ckjs esa vUr% izsj.kk dk vHkko ftlls fu"ikfnr dk;Z vi;kZIr jg tkrk gSA (3). Annexure-7 to the writ application contained the remarks for the year 1985-86 which were communicated to the writ petitioner by the self-same Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Jaipur on 2.6.1989 and it contained the remarks inter- alia as follows : 1- le; dk xSj ikcUn] lkekU; vkpj.k lafgrk dh mis{kk djus okykA mRrjnkf;Ro ls drjkus okykA 2- D;k og kkUrfpr gS] la;eh gS vkSj fLFkj fpr ds lkFk ncko vkSj ruko dks lgu dj ldrk gS\ ¼ugha½ 3- D;k og /kS;Zoku gS vkSj erHksnksa ,oa LoHkkoksa ds izfr lgukhy gS\ ¼ugha½ 4- dk;Z dh vko;drkvksa ds vuq#i larks"kizn Kku dk vHkko] vf/kd lh[kus dh vfHkyk"kk u j[kus okykA 5- vius ewy dk;ksZa esa de #fp rFkk b/kj&m/kj ds nwljs dk;ksZ esa vf/kd lfØ;rk fn[kkus okysA vuqkklu dh Hkkouk dk de gksukA (4). It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had a strained relationship with the respondent No.2, who was the Assistant Public Relations Officer, Sri Gangana- gar and who recorded the adverse entries against him. The self-same Officer-respondent No. 2 issued Certificates to him on 30th January, 1985 (Annexure 4) and 10.12.1986 (Annex. 5) which spoke about his efficiency, dutiful nature and honesty and good character where he wished him a bright career and future and his work and behaviour being of a very satisfactory nature. The self-same Officer-respondent No. 2 issued Certificates to him on 30th January, 1985 (Annexure 4) and 10.12.1986 (Annex. 5) which spoke about his efficiency, dutiful nature and honesty and good character where he wished him a bright career and future and his work and behaviour being of a very satisfactory nature. Curiously enough the self-same Officer gave an adverse entry for the year 1984-85 to the effect that the writ petitioner was inactive and careless about his duties and he lacked the required knowledge for the efficient discharge of his duties and he lacked the desire to learn more and he hardly achieved his target and he lacked inspiration for which his work remained half done. In respect of the year 1985-86 he gave an adverse entry to the effect that he was impunctual in his duties and he avoided the normal norms of conduct. He answered a self- posed question in the negative that he was not of a temperate mind and he could not tolerate the pressure and tensions. He also lacked patience and could not tolerate differences with others and he did not have any tolerance towards others. He lacked satisfactory knowledge which was essential for his work. He did not have any attention towards his basic work, but was involved in extraneous matters where he showed active interest. He also lacked discipline. (5). These confidential reports for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86 were sent by the respondent No. 2 on 17th September, 1985 and 15th October, 1986 respectively and these reports were communicated to the higher authorities. After receiving these confidential reports, these reports were duly considered by the higher authorities and thereafter, vide letter dated 2.6.1989, the writ petitioner was asked to submit his written explanation regarding these adverse entries by the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations. The explanation was sent by the writ petitioner and as is contended by the respondents, it was duly considered by the respondents and on consideration of the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner, the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations intimated to him that his explanation was not considered satisfactory and that the adverse entries made against him would remain without change. (6). (6). As is revealed in the reply forthcoming from the respondents there was a candid denial to any allegation of enmity or dispute in between the writ petitioner on the one hand and the respondent No. 2 on the other and the averment in this regard as made by the writ petitioner was traversed as imaginary without any basis and was contended as `false which deserves no consideration. (7). The main grounds of attack of the writ petitioner in respect of these adverse entries were that these were an outcome of the malice that the respondent No. 2 did bear towards the writ petitioner. Had the allegations been true, the self- same Officer would not have given good character certificates as in Annexures 4 and 5 which spoke of a high rate of character and integrity as testified to by him. (8). It is indeed true that the adverse entries were communicated to the writ petitioner belatedly on 2.6.1989 and if the contention be true as given out in the reply that such adverse entries were made on 17.9.1985 and 15.10.1986, it was com- municated to him after about four years and three years respectively. (9). The question arises as to whether when there is a long delay in the communication of adverse remarks in the ACR, the adverse remarks could be quashed on the grounds of unreasonability and arbitrariness. It is indeed true that there is no hard and fast rule in this regard so far as the present service to which the writ petitioner belongs is concerned. (10). In Tek Chand vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (1), it was held by a learned Single Judge of our Court that communication of adverse remarks has to be made within a reasonable time and if communication is made after a long delay, it will be open to the Court to presume that the adverse entries are arbitrary and meaningless and the Court will be justified in quashing the same on the grounds of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The Court then will further be entitled to conclude that the action of the employer suffers from lack of fairness and therefore of stands contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court then will further be entitled to conclude that the action of the employer suffers from lack of fairness and therefore of stands contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The proper connotation of law would be that the delay in communication of adverse remarks unless properly explained will be a ground for striking down the adverse entries. This was a case where there was no statutory period of limitation prescribed for communication of adverse entries in the ACRs and there was also no administrative guidelines laid down fixing a time frame for communication of adverse remarks. Accordingly, the adverse entries have to be communicated to the employee at the earliest and as was observed in Tek Chands case before the expiry of the next year counted from the year on which adverse remarks are made. If the communication is made after this period, there should be some plausible and reasonable explanation for the delay. The same principle will apply also to a decision as regards repre- sentation, if any, made by the officer concerned. It was further observed in Tek Chands case that where there are absence of material before the Court to substantiate the adverse remarks, the Court can make an inference that the absence of such material justifies the conclusion that the remarks were wholly baseless and arbitrary. It would have been apposite on the part of the Director or the Head of the Department who decides the representation to first call for the comments of the Reporting Officer on representation and then take a decision to accept or reject the representation. (11). In Union of India vs. E.G. Nambudiri (2), it was held that the decision rejecting the representation does not always adversely affect any vested right of the Government servant nor does it visit him with any civil consequences. In many cases having regard to infinite variations of circumstances, it may not be possible to disclose reasons for the opinion formed about the work and conduct or character of the Government servant. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejec- ting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries, the competent authority is not under an obligation to record reasons. However, the competent authority has no licence to act arbitrarily. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejec- ting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries, the competent authority is not under an obligation to record reasons. However, the competent authority has no licence to act arbitrarily. It must act in a fair and just manner and was required to consider the questions raised by the Government servant and examine the same in the light of the comments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer countersigning the same. If the representation is rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. If such an order is challenged in a Court of law, it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the Court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence aliunde before the Court to justify its action. Since under our Constitution an administrative decision is subject to judicial review, it is desirable that reasons should be stated. If any challenge is made to the validity of an order on the ground of it being arbitrary of malafide, it is always open to the authority concerned to place reasons before the Court which may have persuaded to pass such orders. Such reasons must already exist on records as it is not permissible to the authority to support the order by reasons not contained in the record. (12). In State of Haryana vs. P.W. Wadhwa (3), it was observed that the object of the making and communication of adverse remarks is to give to the officer con- cerned an opportunity to improve his performances, conduct or 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 advice 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. 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 reported case, there was a delay of 27 months in communicating the adverse remarks and it was held that the delay was inordinate and improper and it could not be approved. (13). In S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa (4), it was observed by the Supreme Court that writing confidential reports bears onerous responsibility and career prospect of subordinate officers largely depends upon the work and character assessment by reporting officer and hence the comments should be fair, objective, dispassionate, constructive and honest. The subordinate officer is to be encouraged to improve efficiency in service and the discharge of his duties. The reported case was an illustrative one to establish as a stark reality that writing con- fidential reports bears onerous responsibility on the reporting officer to eschew his subjectivity and personal prejudices or proclivity or predilections and to make objective assessment. It is needless to emphasis that the career prospect of a subordinate officer or employee largely depends upon the work and character assessment by the reporting officer. Therefore, the reporting officer should adopt fair, objective, dispassionate and constructive comments in estimating or assessing the character, ability, integrity and responsibility dis-played by the concerned officer or employee during the relevant period. If such objectives are not strictly adhered to in making an honest assessment, the prospect and career of the subordinate officer should be put to great jeopardy. Therefore, writing the confide- ntial reports objectively and constructively and communication thereof at the earliest would always pave way for amends by erring subordinate officer or employee to improve the efficiency in service and at the same time, the subordinate officer or employee should dedicate to do hard work and duty, assiduity in the discharge of the duty, honestly with integrity in performance thereof which alone would earn his usefulness in retention of his service and both would contribute to improve excellence in service. (14). (14). In Jhavar Prakash vs. Rajasthan High Court (5), it was observed by a Division Bench of our Court in respect of communication of ACRs of Judicial Officers where remarks for the year 1985 were communicated on 16.8.1986 and remarks for the year 1987 were communicated on 13.9.1989 and remarks for the year 1983 were communicated on 13.6.1986 that looking to the nature of remarks alleged the delay was not fatal and the remarks need not be necessarily quashed merely for this reason. It was permissible to apply different and stricter standard in deciding whether remarks should be quashed or not. The reasonableness of time in communication of remarks has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. The remarks not being the same as finding arrived at after enquiry, it was further observed in this case that detailed reasons for the same as calling for comments of Reporting Officer were not necessary in every case. (15). I have gone through the facts of the case in Jhavar Prakash (supra), which are distinguishable from the present one. I do not think that the ratio as propounded in Jhavar Prakashs case is really called into play in the present one. (16). In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there not having been any affidavit sworn by the respondent No. 2 in person even though he was impleaded by name, denying the allegations of bias or malice and no record being placed in this regard, I think the non-communication of the remarks within a reasonable time would warrant expunction of such remarks. I am constrained to hold that I am not satisfied with the explanation as offered by the respondents in the reply, more so in the light of character certificates having been granted by the self-same Officer on a different context and he taking a different stand while giving out Annual Confidential Reports in another perspective. Be that as it may, it would not be safe to rely on such confidential reports to decide the future career of the writ petitioner while in service. (17). In the result, the writ petition succeeds, adverse remarks as made by the respondent No. 2 which are subject matter of the present controversy being Annx. Be that as it may, it would not be safe to rely on such confidential reports to decide the future career of the writ petitioner while in service. (17). In the result, the writ petition succeeds, adverse remarks as made by the respondent No. 2 which are subject matter of the present controversy being Annx. 6 and 7 stand quashed and the respondents however are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law if there be any allegation of dereliction of duty against the writ petitioner which may be found on materials on record. With these observations, the writ application stands disposed of.