JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is a confirmed Junior Accountant in the office of Director, Treasuries and Accounts (but has since retired because of superannuation) is challenging the adverse entry as conveyed to him in the year 1984-85 written by the Reporting Officer and conveyed to him on 29.7.1985 with the following remarks.Knowledge of rules is not satisfactory (English translation) 2. The petitioner was working as Junior Accountant and had worked as such from 1979 to 1985 in the Local Fund (Pre- audit) Department Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara, in Sheep & Wool Department in the year 1985 and 1986 and in Local Fund (Pre-Audit), Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara in 1987. 3. In order to have proper check, control and assessment over the work performed and accomplished by the officials of Local Fund (Pre-Audit), instructions had been issued by the Director, Local Fund Audit to make periodical and sudden inspections of their work because of the fact that whatever Bills and Vouchers are passed by them, these were deemed to be passed final. In the year 1984-85 number of inspections were made. It is stated that the petitioner was found to be performing quite satisfactorily and as per inspection reports this very officer had made a report when the inspection was made on 18.6.1984 to 19.6.1984 to the effect that the work of the petitioner was satisfactory. This very officer had also made inspection on 3.1.1985 and 4.1.1985 and again on 13.8.1985 mentioning in the reports that the work of the said officer was satisfactory. One another inspection was made by Shri Damodar Lal Agrawal on 20.9.1984 to 22.9.1984 wherein the report was made that the work of the petitioner and whole of the audit staff was quite satisfactory. It goes without saying that the petitioner was one of the member of the Audit staff. Such reports are annexed with the petitioner as Annexure 3,4,5 and 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that out of four inspections made during the year, three were made by the Reporting Officer who has now written against him and this very officer had mentioned therein that the work of the inspection staff including the petitioner was found to be most satisfactory. It is the contention of the petitioner that out of four inspections made during the year, three were made by the Reporting Officer who has now written against him and this very officer had mentioned therein that the work of the inspection staff including the petitioner was found to be most satisfactory. The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order Annexure-2 as communicated to him and he made a representation vide Annexure-7 and reminders having seen sent by the petitioner ultimately, the representation was rejected vide Annexure-9 dated 31.3.1986. The petitioner continued making representations even thereafter. The petitioner submits that his work and conduct prior to such impugned remarks and even subsequent thereto was self explanatory and even he had been appreciated by the Chairman, Urban Basic Services, Bhilwara vide D.O. Letter dated 22.1.1989, copy of which is attached as Annexure-15. Because of this adverse report, the petitioner had suffered for promotion to the post of Accountant from the post of Junior Accountant. It is the submission of the petitioner that the adverse remarks are not based on any objective material. The work and performance through out the year of 1984-85 was satisfactory. Even prior to such remarks or subsequent to such remarks, the petitioner had never been adversely commented upon and he had so narrated in his representation time and again. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents. The facts as stated are not denied. It is not denied that Annexures-3, 4 and 5 were communicated but it is submitted that these annexures relate to-whole of the audit staff including the petitioner, but the so called adverse entry about the ignorance of the rules was a personal assessment of the Reporting Officer for one year. It is not denied that there is no such complaint prior to or even subsequent to such remarks against the petitioner. It is also not denied that such remarks are not based on any material at all, but it is the personal subjective opinion of the Reporting Officer. 5. Record was called for from the department which has been produced for perusal. 6. It is also not denied that such remarks are not based on any material at all, but it is the personal subjective opinion of the Reporting Officer. 5. Record was called for from the department which has been produced for perusal. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that Junior Accountant in the Accounts Department including the petitioner, if were knowing the rules and if there was ample knowledge of the rules in the previous years, it cannot be said that for a particular year the petitioner had become ignorant of the rules when specially no instance has ever been mentioned of Ignorance of any particular rule or any omission was pointed out at any time to the petitioner during about 25 years of service when this remarks was made. After perusing the record of the petitioner for the year 1976-77, his performance have been found to be normal, for the subsequent years also the work is satisfactory. His reports are satisfactory. Even in one of the report same reporting officer had commended on 26.5.1985 and while commenting on the petitioner had mentioned that whatever work has been done by the audit party No. 4, Bhilwara, it is because of this audit party and the work of the petitioner is commended. In the entry In column of job and performance, the officer has said that he has adequate knowledge of job in the present requirement of job. It has also been mentioned in Col. No. 5 that his out-put is satisfactory and usually meets the targets and has moulded ability of communicating ideas and handles citizens fairly and courtously. Under the column of fact of any repriment or disciplinary action taken during the year, it is clearly mentioned that no such action was ever contemplated. Even under the column where some improvement of working is needed for said officer, the remark is that there is no necessity of the same. Under the column whether any training of development is required, the reporting officer had written that there was no such necessity. But in the column of over all assessment the reporting officer had mentioned that his work is average and knowledge of rules is not satisfactory. The later part of this column is being challenged. The reviewing officer had agreed. 7. But in the column of over all assessment the reporting officer had mentioned that his work is average and knowledge of rules is not satisfactory. The later part of this column is being challenged. The reviewing officer had agreed. 7. There is hardly any necessity to go into the other reports made from time to time in the years prior to this report and even to the subsequent report because there is nothing adverse. In the year 1983 he was found fit for promotion. 8. After going through whole of the record, I find that the comments made by the reporting officer are self- contradictory when read with other columns of ACRs and are not based on any material what-so-ever on record as to warrant that the officer has no sufficient knowledge of rules. In the written statement filed by the department, it is not stated as to what were the basis for making such a subjective opinion by the reporting officer when same reporting officer of the same year and one the same reports of the particular column relating to his work, conduct and knowledge had commented in his favour, but while writing under column of over all assessment had made the above-said remarks. 9. If this very officer had sufficient knowledge of the rules as there was no such adverse comments on his work and conduct in the previous years ever communicated to him, it is not understood as to how for one year of 1983- 84, all of a sudden he lacked the sufficient knowledge of the rules when in subsequent years even though not relevant for the decision of this case, there was nothing against him. 10. Even though this court cannot sit as an appellate court so as to substitute its own decision in regard to the ACR but until and unless there is some material placed on record in regard to work/conduct or any such thing as to warrant the adverse remarks, the official is not required to be commented upon adversely as has been done in the present case. 11. 11. Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this court in Tek Chand v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1407 of 1990 decided on 21.12.1993 , wherein this court had held that the absence of material upon which the adverse remarks were based justifies the conclusion that the remarks are wholly baseless and arbitrary. The confidential report do not contain any details regarding slow disposal of cases by the petitioner or inadequacy of the disposal of the cases. The number of cases decided by the petitioner has not been indicated. Similarly, it has not been indicated as to whether there was an complaint against the petitioner regarding his relations with the Bar. No material was placed before the Court to substantiate the adverse remarks In regard to his work. 12. In the case of Ratan Lal Agrawal v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and others, 1995(3) WLC 428 wherein adverse entries were vague and unfounded and non-application of mind in considering the representation made by the petitioner in that case, this court had expunged the remarks and had held that the adverse remarks given to the petitioner were arbitrary. Relying on the judgment of Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, 1991(3) SCC 38 it was held that the competent authority had no license to act arbitrarily. He must act in the fair and just manner. He Is 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. Even though no reasons are required to it, but it does not mean that the administrative authority is at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. The competent authority is under obligation to act fairly and objectively. 13. Division Bench of this court in Sultan Sings v. State of Raj. & Ors., RLR 1995(1) page 493 had held that the writ was maintainable against the expunction of remarks in the character roll on the ground that such of remarks would prejudice the chances of promotion of the Government servant. 14. 13. Division Bench of this court in Sultan Sings v. State of Raj. & Ors., RLR 1995(1) page 493 had held that the writ was maintainable against the expunction of remarks in the character roll on the ground that such of remarks would prejudice the chances of promotion of the Government servant. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, I fully agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and quash the communication of the so called adverse entry to the effect 'NIYAMON KA GYAN NAHIN HAI' as mentioned in Annexure-2 and all subsequent orders in this regard including rejection of appeal as there was no application of mind before giving said adverse entry. The petitioner had since superannuated, but if because of the said entry, his case for promotion was not considered, it shall be in the fitness of the circumstances to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Accountant from the date when his junior was so promoted or when the petitioner was deprived of such promotion because of said unjustified remarks and to grant him all such benefits to which he would have been entitled to, had he been promoted. 15. The writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 1000/-.Writ Petition allowed with Cost of Rs. 1000/-. *******