JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has come up in appeal against an order dated 8.10.93 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6078/92, whereby he assailed the findings in the matter of recording adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports made by the reporting authority. 2. Brief facts are that the writ petition was filed by the appellant in the matter of recording adverse entries against him for the period from 6.7.1989 to 3.9.1989 and adverse remarks in A.C.R. for the year 1988-89 covering the period from 16.12.1989 to 31.5.1989 (Sic). 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the adverse entries and remarks are two different subjects, which carry their own different standards to make the entries in service profile, and it is governed by the Special Army Orders 3.5.89 and instructions for rendition of Confidential reports for Officers 1989, which are supplement to the Special Army Orders 3.S.89 formulated w.e.f. 3rd February, 1989 and made applicable to all confidential reports initiated on June 1, 1989 and thereafter. Relying upon para 3 of the said orders it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the instructions for rendition of confidential reports of the concerned officer shall he deemed to have been issued under the authority of Special Army Orders 3.5.89 formulated by the Ministry of Defence and ought to have been treated es orders for amplification note on Special Army Orders. 4. In the context of the above background, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had received a Warning letter dated 6.7.89 (Ann.1) and after issuing the said letter, the initiating officer had made adverse entries in the appellant's A.C.R., which was dittoed by the reviewing officer in the same language vide Annexure 2. 5. We have perused the extract of remarks made by the Initiating Officer in para 19 (a) & (b) viz.- (a) Maj. M.H. Chowdhary is a short statured officer with a tendency to put on weight. He is physically weak and often takes shelter on medical grounds, on alleged old injuries, to avoid physical activity. He shirks work. He cannot be relied upon to perform any independent task assigned to him satisfactorily. He lacks integrity, loyalty and moral courage. He does not command any respect from his troops colleagues and superiors. He is physically weak and often takes shelter on medical grounds, on alleged old injuries, to avoid physical activity. He shirks work. He cannot be relied upon to perform any independent task assigned to him satisfactorily. He lacks integrity, loyalty and moral courage. He does not command any respect from his troops colleagues and superiors. He has no hold over his company he commands. He pays little attention to the well being, training and motivation of the troops under him. He has a tendency to argue unreasonably and pays little respect to his seniors. He has no pride in himself, his unit or the Army. His conduct has been unbecoming of an officer and he is a liability to the service." The officer is not likely to improve and is not fit for retention in service." 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant documents on record and also findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 8.10.93. In our view, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants do not merit acceptance. We are further of the view that the observations made by the learned Single Judge are also not open to challenge. Prima facie we are of the view that it is always open to the reporting officer the record in annual confidential report of the employee/officer and unless any malafide is attributed to the reporting officer, its report or remarks are not open to challenge. It is not the case of the appellant that the entries made by the reporting authority in the annual confidential report of the report are actuated with malice nor it is his case that the adverse remarks in the annual confidential report were not communicated to him. Form a perusal of relevant documents referred to above, we are of the view that it is always subjective satisfaction of the reporting authority in the matter of recording annual confidential report of the employee/officer, which is based on his objective satisfaction. Form a perusal of relevant documents referred to above, we are of the view that it is always subjective satisfaction of the reporting authority in the matter of recording annual confidential report of the employee/officer, which is based on his objective satisfaction. If on the basis of an over all assessment of the employee/officer the reporting authority comes to the conclusion that the adverse remarks should be made in the annual confidential report of an employee/officer on the basis of his performance and behaviour, which has been closely watched by his immediately superior officer then it is not open for the employee to challenge the adverse remarks. From a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, we are satisfied that it is only when the reporting authority (respondent No. 4), in whose charge services of the appellant were placed, and who had better opportunity to examine his conduct and to look into his performance for the period in dispute, had recorded adverse entries in his annual confidential report. Rather, it is apparent that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to improve his conduct and performance but he did not improve himself. Hence the impugned actions of the reporting and reviewing authority are not open to challenge and cannot be described as arbitrary or unreasonable. A perusal of Annexures 4 & 8 reveals that the statutory complaints filed by the appellant were duly examined by the Ministry of defence and they were found to be without merit and were consequently rejected. In our opinion, since the appellant has failed to make out a case for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and consequently this appeal has got no merit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board and another v. Kharak Singh & another, 1990 Supp. SCC 4 . it was a case where respondent Kharak Singh Junior Engineer was considered for promotion in selection grade thrice during 1977-79 but left out due to adverse entries of 1972-73 while promotion given to his juniors and those adverse entries of 1972-73 were, however, expunged in 1979 and despite expunction of his adverse entries, he was not promoted in selection grade and thereafter as Assistant Engineer, against which Respondent Kharak Singh made an application before the UP Public Service Tribunal, which allowed claim of respondent Kharak Singh. The Apex Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal and held respondent Kharak Singh entitled to promotion in selection grade and thereafter Assistant Engineer from dates his juniors were so promoted. In the' present case, facts are entirely different than Kharak Singh's case (supra). Therefore, Kharak Singh's case does not render any assistance to the present appellant. 8. Our aforesaid observations are fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri AIR 1991 SC 1261 , wherein the Apex Court observed that the scope of interference by the Court in the matters pertaining to annual confidential report is restricted and since the case as set up by the appellant does not fall within four corners of the observations made by the Apex Court, no interference by this Court is called for.In the result, this special appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.Spl. appeal dismissed. *******