JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner came to be appointed in Rajasthan Police Service cadre on May 5, 1970. In the year 1976-77 for a period of three months, petitioner's integrity was eclipsed by the dark clouds and adverse remarks were written in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (for short APAR). However, for the remaining months of the said year he was held to be very good officer. Representation submitted by the petitioner against the adverse remarks was rejected vide order dated April 14, 1978. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Super time Scale of RPS in the years 1982, 1989 and 1997 respectively. Presently the petitioner is working on the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in the Super Time Scale of RPS cadre. The petitioner was due for promotion from Rajasthan Police Service Cadre to Indian Police Service cadre against the vacancies of 1996-97. According to the petitioner, he was considered and selected in the month of July 1998 but as the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan did not issue the integrity certificate, his promotion order could not be issued and the persons who were juniors to the petitioner were promoted in the IPS cadre vide order dated August 24, 1998. Th petitioner submitted representation for exonerating the integrity certificate mentioned in the APAR of 1976-77 but it was rejected vide order dated December 2, 1998. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the order dated December 2, 1998 and prays to allow the representation and to treat the adverse remarks in the APAR of 1976-77 for three months as washed off due to the promotion of the petitioner in Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Super Time Scale of RPS. The petitioner has further prayed to quash the order dated April 14, 1978 of the D.O.P. Government of Rajasthan Jaipur whereby a decision was taken not to expunge the adverse remarks entered in his APAR for' the year 1976-77. 2. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition averred that adverse remarks entered in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 1976-77 remained in tact and they were not considered while giving promotion to the petitioner. An officer of the RPS cadre is entitled to get promotion in IPS cadre in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 (for short 1955 Regulations). An officer of the RPS cadre is entitled to get promotion in IPS cadre in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 (for short 1955 Regulations). As per Regulation 5 of 1955 Regulations service credentials of the officers to be promoted to the post of IPS should be dear and in case there is any adverse material especially in the field of integrity the promotion cannot be given. As there were adverse remarks in the APAR for the year 1976-77 of the petitioner the integrity certificate could not be issued in his favour. It was further pleaded that writ petition not only suffers from grossly unexplained delay but is also not sustainable on merit because the theory of "washed off" does not apply in cases of doubtful integrity. Promotion in IPS is given on the basis of positive merit and lack of integrity is sufficient ground for not giving promotion. The respondents also stated in the reply that during pendency of O.A.. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner is not entitled to file writ petition. Averments in respect of implement of Union of India and Union Public Service Commission have been made in the reply. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the reply. 3. 1 have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 4. At the outset I propose to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of unexplained gross delay. Admittedly till July 1998 the adverse remarks entered in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 1976-77 never became hurdle in the service path of the petitioner. He was given Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Super Time Scale of RPS in the years 1982, 1989 and 1997. It is for the first time when the petitioner was due for promotion to IPS cadre his integrity certificate was withheld in July 1998 and vide order dated August 24, 1998 the persons who were juniors to the petitioner, were promoted. The petitioner submitted representation but it was rejected vide order dated December 2, 1998. Thereafter the petitioner on December 17, 1998 instituted the writ petition. 5. An adverse entry in APAR does not cause immediate harm to a Government servant but its after-effects may affect his future service career. The petitioner submitted representation but it was rejected vide order dated December 2, 1998. Thereafter the petitioner on December 17, 1998 instituted the writ petition. 5. An adverse entry in APAR does not cause immediate harm to a Government servant but its after-effects may affect his future service career. The correctness of the adverse entry can be called in question by a Government servant while assailing any consequent order related to it. Hon'ble Justice J.S. Verma (as he then was) speaking for the Full Bench in (1) Tayyab Ali vs. State of Rajasthan ( 1988 (2) RLR 1 ) indicated that an adverse entry by itself does not visit the Government servant with any immediate denial or variation of any service condition to his disadvantage even though it constitutes significant material relevant for determination of future service conditions. The correctness of the adverse entry therefore can be assailed by the Government servant at the time of challenging any consequent order based on or influenced by it. 6. Thus in view of ratio propounded in Tayyab Ali's case (supra) it can safely be held that while assailing the order dated December 2, 1998, the petitioner can also call in question the correctness of the adverse remarks entered in his APAR of 1976-77 and the subsequent order dated April 14, 1978 whereby his request for expunging adverse remarks was declined. 7. It appears from a bare look at the document Annexure-3 appended with the writ petition that on the basis of complaint of accused Dr. D.N. Bohra in Criminal Case No. 23/76 following remarks were entered in the APAR of the petitioner "During reinvestigation of FIR No. 23/76 against Dr. D.N. Bohra it was found that Shri Soni, Dy. S.P. had made a demand of र 10,000/- to help him in the case. Matter is still under investigation." The petitioner submitted detailed representation to Dr. Deena Nath Chairman Selection Committee when his name was being considered for giving promotion to Senior Scale of RPS stating therein that "it is very natural that the accused person makes false allegations against the crime officer with object to save his own skin, but his version unsupported by independent or circumstantial evidence can not be relied upon. Deena Nath Chairman Selection Committee when his name was being considered for giving promotion to Senior Scale of RPS stating therein that "it is very natural that the accused person makes false allegations against the crime officer with object to save his own skin, but his version unsupported by independent or circumstantial evidence can not be relied upon. Believing on the solitary and interested evidence of the accused and incorporating such coloured version in the remarks the ACR is unjust and smacks of prejudice on the part of reporting officer. It may also be submitted that case against Dr. Bohra has been challenged in the court of law and accused Dr. D.N. Bohra has been placed under suspension on the strength of my report. If there was any fault on my part in this regard, the Reporting Officer ought to have taken disciplinary action against me, but he did not, though the enquiry report in the complaint against me had been submitted on 15.10.76 and the ACR was drawn in 1977. I may submit that as the case has been challaned in the court and enquiry report by the Addl. S.P. (Crime) A.C.D. has been submitted, this allegation can not stand against me. Hence the remarks are baseless and misleading." It also appears from the record that the petitioner had tendered evidence against the reporting officer in case No. 49/74 before Justice I.D. Dua, the then Lokayukta, Rajasthan Jaipur and the petitioner in the said representation stated that adverse remarks were entered by the reporting officer out of sheer prejudice. 8. Before proceeding further I deem it necessary to refer the views expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme court in respect of integrity of officers in (2) M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India (1998(4) Service Cases Today 325) . Their Lordships observed that "If integrity of senior officers, who established unblemished reputation and earned encomiums from all concerned till then, is proclaimed as doubtful merely on the strength of statements of persons prosecuted by such officers, what is the safety of such officers more so when they have to embark on hazardous operations risking their lives against big business houses ?It was further indicated that "while evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertain able by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity".(Underlining is mine) 9. The petitioner was granted senior scale vide order dated June 30, 1982 (Annexure-4) on the recommendation of Selection Committee constituted under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules 1954 (for short 1954 Rules). Rule 32 of 1954 rules provides that appointment to Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Supertime Scale posts shall be made by Government from amongst the members of the service on the basis of merit and seniority cum merit on the recommendation of committee consisting of Chairman RPSC or a member nominated by him as Chairman and Special Secretary Appointment department, Secretary Home Department, Inspector General of Police Rajasthan and Dy. Secretary Home as members. The committee shall consider the cases of all the persons eligible for promotion by examining their Confidential Rolls and Personal Files and shall interview them if it deem necessary and shall select a number of candidates equal to the number of vacancies likely to be filled by promotion. While considering the name of the petition for giving promotion to Senior Scale of RPS, the Selection Committee examined his APAR and representation made against adverse remarks (Annexure-3) and found him suitable for giving promotion to Senior Scale. Thereafter also the APAR of the petitioner was examined and he was granted Selection Scale in 1989. The petitioner was promoted in the Super Time Scale of RPS vide order dated September 20, 1997 against the year 1996-97 against merit quota. 10. Thereafter also the APAR of the petitioner was examined and he was granted Selection Scale in 1989. The petitioner was promoted in the Super Time Scale of RPS vide order dated September 20, 1997 against the year 1996-97 against merit quota. 10. It was canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the adverse remarks in respect of 'doubtful integrity' of the petitioner in the APAR of 1976-77 remained intact and in view of proviso appended to sub-clause (5) of Regulation 5 of 1955 Regulations, integrity certificate of the petitioner was withheld and he was not found fit for promotion to the IPS. It was also urged that at the time of granting Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Super Time Scale the aforesaid adverse entries were not considered therefore theory of 'washed offices not apply. Proviso to clause (5) of Regulation 5 of 1955 Regulations reads as under "Provided that the name of any officer so included in the list shall be treated as provisional if the State Government withholds the integrity certificate in respect of such officer if any proceedings are contemplated or pending against him or anything adverse against him has come to the notice of the State Government." Admittedly there is nothing adverse against the petitioner except the aforesaid adverse remarks entered in his APAR of 1976-77. As stated earlier the adverse remarks were thoroughly examined by the Selection Committee at the time of considering the name of the petitioner for giving promotion to Senior Scale of RPS in view of Rule 32 of 1954 Rules and after looking at the re presentation of the petitioner submitted against the adverse remarks, the selection committee found him fit to be promoted to Senior Scale of RPS and made commendations accordingly. Thereafter also the petitioner was promoted to Selection Scale and Super Time Scale against merit quota. Thus there is no substance in the contention of the respondents that while giving promotions to the petitioner the adverse remarks recorded in his APAR were not taken into consideration. 11. In (3) O.P. Jain vs. Rajasthan High Court (1990(2) RLR 257=WLR 1991(5) Raj. Thereafter also the petitioner was promoted to Selection Scale and Super Time Scale against merit quota. Thus there is no substance in the contention of the respondents that while giving promotions to the petitioner the adverse remarks recorded in his APAR were not taken into consideration. 11. In (3) O.P. Jain vs. Rajasthan High Court (1990(2) RLR 257=WLR 1991(5) Raj. 432) it was held by this court that if the employee inspite of adverse remarks is found fit for further promotion or is appointed on an important post by due selection by a High Power Committee or is confirmed on a particular post it would mean that all his earlier adverse entries relating to a period prior to that stand washed off. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (4) State of Punjab vs. Chunilal ( AIR 1970 SC 2086 ) and (5) Swami Saran vs. State of U.P. ( AIR 1980 SC 269 ) indicated that not only the promotion but even the permission to cross Efficiency Bar is sufficient to wash off the earlier adverse entries. Madhya Pradesh High Court in (6) S.C. Vaish Bhopal's case (1986(2) SLR 794) observed that "Reliance on old and stale entries in the service record of the petitioner is nothing but, "an act bordering on perversity to dig out old files to find out some material to make an order -against the officer "which has been condemned by the Supreme Court in (7) J.D. Shrivastava's case ( AIR 1984 SC 630 ) ." 12. In the case on hand the respondents have made an attempt to dig out old files of the petitioner to peep into the remarks which already stood washed off. The Selection Committee constituted by the Government under Rule 32 of 1954 Rules already noticed the adverse remarks entered in the APAR of the petitioner as back as in 1982 and ignoring the said remarks found the petitioner fit for promotion. The said remarks were also left unnoticed in 1989 and 1997 and the petitioner was treated as meritorious but after few months the said remarks "came to the notice of the State Government" for the purpose of withholding the integrity certificate of the petitioner under proviso to clause (5) of Regulation 5 of 1955 Regulations. The said remarks were also left unnoticed in 1989 and 1997 and the petitioner was treated as meritorious but after few months the said remarks "came to the notice of the State Government" for the purpose of withholding the integrity certificate of the petitioner under proviso to clause (5) of Regulation 5 of 1955 Regulations. In my considered opinion the remarks that were already considered in 1982 and ignored by duly constituted Selection Committee while giving the promotion to the petitioner, could not have been reconsidered as they stood washed off. In view of this the act of the Chief Secretary in withholding the integrity certificate of the petitioner was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Secretary also did not properly consider the representation of the petitioner and committed illegality in rejecting the same vide order dated December 2. 1998. I have no doubt that there is utter dearth of material for the respondents to conclude that petitioner had doubtful integrity. Such a conclusion does not stand judicial scrutiny even within the limited permissible scope. 13. There is also no substance in the arguments that during the pendency of O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal the writ petition is not maintainable and that the Union of India and the UPSC are necessary parties. A look at the order dated December 7, 1998 of the CAT demonstrates that while disposing the Miscellaneous Application No. 225/98 the petitioner was granted liberty to get the hurdle of withholding the integrity certificate removed by appropriate legal measures. The UOI and UPSC are also not the necessary party in view of relief sought by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The submissions must therefore stand rejected. 14. As a result of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and I hold that in view of the promotions given the the petitioner in Senior Scale (1982), Selection Scale (1985) (sic 1989 ?) and Supertime Scale (1997) by the Selection Committee duly constituted under Rule 32 of 1954 Rules after considering the adverse remarks entered in the APAR of petitioner for the year 1976-77 for three months, the said remarks stood washed off and they cannot be taken into consideration by the State Government at the time of examining the case of the petitioner for promotion to the IPS cadre. Asa necessary consequence the order dated April 14, 1978 shall be treated as honest. The impugned order dated December 2, 1998 shall also stand set aside. The respondents shall now work out the reliefs to be granted to the petitioner as sequel to this judgment. 15. The writ petition stands allowed as indicated here in above but without any order as to costs.Petition Allowed *******