JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---At the oral request of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 is ordered to be deleted. 2.Rule. Mr. R.S. Sundaram, the learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3.The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the respondent No. 3, Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Central Railway, Mumbai dated August 2, 1999 at Annexure-U to the petition in the light of an order passed by the Director General-R.P.F. dated January 2, 2002 annexed to his additional affidavit in reply at Annexure 'CC'. 4.The case of the petitioner is that he was serving with the respondents in Railway Protection Force. His service record was clean and unblemished. However, an adverse entry came to be made by the third respondent vide his order dated August 2, 1999, in the confidential reports for the year 1998-99. The relevant part thereof reads as under:--- "Officer have been found acting in arbitrary, erratic and irregular manner. Internal vigilance group conducted an enquiry which revealed in one case he abruptive disassociated R.P.F. from witnessing scrap delivery to a bona fide purchaser who otherwise was getting deliveries earlier even during Shri Shukla's tenure. This action was not only unwarranted but was in defence of all norms and against the instruction and guidelines in vogue. His explanation was called and found unsatisfactory. His plea was that the said purchaser has a criminal record. Enquiry re-vacated that there was no case against him during past several years including Shri Shukla's action, fraught with ulterior motive or he is still indulging in crime. Shri Shukla is conniving with him by not taking proper action under law. Either way, it only presents sufficient reason to doubt his integrity. It give reason to lower his grading as well, I grade him as "Average" and without his integrity." (Emphasis supplied). 5.It was the case of the petitioner that an allegation was levelled against him vide a charge-sheet dated June 6, 2001 that even after public auction, when a bid of successful bidder was accepted by the department and the petitioner was required to deliver the property to the purchaser, there was failure on his part in implementing the order. 5.It was the case of the petitioner that an allegation was levelled against him vide a charge-sheet dated June 6, 2001 that even after public auction, when a bid of successful bidder was accepted by the department and the petitioner was required to deliver the property to the purchaser, there was failure on his part in implementing the order. The respondent No. 3, therefore, was of the view that an illegality had been committed by the petitioner and accordingly an adverse entry was made in his confidential reports. 6.It may, however, be mentioned that on January 2, 2002, the Director General, R.P.F., passed an order which has been produced on record with the additional affidavit. In the said order, it was stated that a minor penalty charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner with regard to the irregularities committed by him in not allowing R.P.F. staff to be associated with witnessing the delivery of railway material to a successful bidder. In the said order it was also mentioned that since the successful bidder did not get delivery of auctioned scrap materials, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2049 of 1998 and only thereafter, delivery of goods was given to him. 7.A representation was made by the petitioner on September 19, 2001 in response to the charge-sheet issued against him wherein he had admitted that he did not allow the R.P.F. staff to witness the delivery of the auction material to the successful bidder. He, however, tried to justify his action of non-associating of R.P.F. staff from witnessing delivery of auction materials on the ground that the successful bidder had criminal background and that the petitioner had referred the matter to the higher authorities debarring him from taking away the materials by the bidder. 8.The Director General after applying his mind to the facts and circumstances, recorded findings in paragraphs 3, 3-1 and 4 as under:--- "3. Now, therefore, after careful consideration of the lapses mentioned in the aforesaid memorandum, representation of Shri Shukla and all other factors/records relevant to the case I find that none of the points raised by him in his defence statement justifies his action of not allowing the R.P.F. staff to witness delivery of the auctioned material on the ground that a proposal of debarring M/s. Ravi Steel Industries from taking part in auctions had been referred by him to higher authorities. Any decision on the proposal mooted by him could affect future auctions and it could not be applied to the auctions which had already taken place and in which the firm in question had taken part and were successful bidders. For the auctions which had already taken place and the successful bidder had deposited the bid amount with the department, the railways were legally bound to effect delivery of the auctioned material to the successful bidder, after observing formalities laid down under extant Rules/instructions. However, he failed to appreciate the legal implications of withholding the delivery of auctioned material to the successful bidder beyond a reasonable time. 3.1. R.P.F. staff are associated to witness delivery to ensure qualitative and quantitative delivery of the auctioned material to the successful bidder. Instead of ensuring that the R.P.F. staff under his control performed their duty diligently, Shri Shukla did not allow R.P.F. staff to associate in witnessing delivery of the auctioned material. Thus, the act of non-associating the R.P.F. staff with witnessing of delivery and consequent non-delivery of the auctioned material to the successful bidder resulted in willful harassment to the party and forced the railway administration to engage itself into unnecessary litigation. 4. Although the lapse of not allowing the R.P.F. staff to witness delivery, instead of instructing them to ensure qualitative and quantitative delivery of auctioned material to the successful bidder, on the part of Shri Shukla has been fully established, I, however, feel that his action stemmed out of his enthusiasm to debar the party- having criminal background than any mala fide on his part. Therefore, taking an overall view of the case, I feel that ends of justice will be met if penalty of "censure" is imposed on him and accordingly I impose this punishment." 9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Director General-superior authority to respondent No. 3 had applied his mind, considered the facts and circumstances of the case and recorded a finding against the petitioner that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the directions issued by the authorities but at the same time observed that there was no mala fide intention behind it and the action was taken in over enthusiasm and a penalty of censure was imposed, which the petitioner accepted, it was not open to respondent No. 3 now to retain or rely upon the adverse entry made in the confidential reports of 1998-99 wherein it was stated that there was ulterior motive on the part of the petitioner and he was indulging in crime. The Counsel also contended that the third respondent had committed an error of law in observing that the petitioner was conniving in not taking proper action under the law which he was required to take as per the successful bid accepted by the department. The third respondent ought not to have observed that there was reason to doubt integrity of the petitioner and no action was called for of withholding the integrity of the petitioner. 10.Now, from the facts, it is abundantly clear that a public auction was held for sale of scrapped materials by the department. A successful bidder was required to be delivered goods as per his bid. It was, therefore, obligatory on the petitioner to take all necessary steps and consequential actions in the presence of R.P.F. officials. There was failure on his part in implementing the said direction. It was, therefore, perfectly justified for the respondent authorities in recording a finding that the petitioner had not carried out the instructions and obeyed them. 11.A short question which was raised before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was as to whether an adverse entry made in the Confidential Reports regarding doubtful integrity and the final order of withholding of integrity was called for. It is no doubt true that by an order dated August 2, 1999, the third respondent had made an adverse entry. It is no doubt true that by an order dated August 2, 1999, the third respondent had made an adverse entry. The learned Counsel for the respondents is also right in relying upon the fact that being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had made representation for reviewing the said entry but it was not accepted. The petitioner accepted the said order and did not take further action. 12.In our opinion, however, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in relying upon the fact that in connection with the same incident, when the Director General R.P.F. had passed an order that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner and that considering the 'criminal background' of the successful bidder, in over enthusiasm, the petitioner had taken the action of not effecting delivery of goods, which was found to be objectionable and finally punishment of censure was imposed on him, the third respondent cannot now rely on the adverse entry made in the Confidential Reports regarding doubtful integrity of the petitioner nor take an action of withholding of integrity. 13.We may, in this connection, refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court. In (P.K. Shastri v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others)1, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3273, the Apex Court observed that the Confidential Reports of an officer are basically the performance appraisal of the officer and would constitute vital service record in relation to his career advancement. Any adverse remark in the Confidential Reports could mar the entire career of that Officer. It is, therefore, necessary that in the event of a remark being called for in the Confidential Records, the authorities directing such remark must first come to the conclusion that fact situation is such that it is imperative to make such remarks to set right the wrong committed by the officer concerned. A decision in that regard must be taken objectively after careful consideration of all the materials which are before the authority directing the remark being made in the Confidential Reports. 14.Similarly, in (M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and others)2, 1998(7) S.C.C. 310 , the Court held that while evaluating the materials, the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. 14.Similarly, in (M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and others)2, 1998(7) S.C.C. 310 , the Court held 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 is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct particularly in the field of administrative law. The authorities should keep the eyes open towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent pass by those who were supervising him earlier. 15.The Court then stated:--- "........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 entertainable 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". (Emphasis supplied). 16.In the case on hand, the above principle would squarely apply. It was the case of the petitioner that the successful bidder was having a criminal background. No doubt, the respondent No. 3 stated in the order that there was no case against him (successful bidder) "during past several years". From the record, however, it appears that there were certain cases, may be old or unrelated to unlawful possession of railway property. But the fact of criminal cases was very much on record and has been referred to even in the order passed by the Director General. In the light of that fact, the petitioner did not allow the successful bidder to take away the property. In our opinion, therefore, the Director General was right in observing that there was over enthusiasm on the part of the petitioner but not a mala fide intention in not effecting delivery of goods to him. If it is so, obviously the penalty of censure which was imposed on the petitioner could not be said to be unreasonable or illegal and the order of penalty has not been challenged even by the petitioner. If it is so, obviously the penalty of censure which was imposed on the petitioner could not be said to be unreasonable or illegal and the order of penalty has not been challenged even by the petitioner. But in the light of the said finding, an adverse entry made in the confidential reports of the petitioner by the third respondent regarding doubtful integrity and final action by order of withholding of integrity cannot be sustained. 17.For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. It is ordered that the order passed by the Director General of imposing penalty of censure which is not challenged by the petitioner is not disturbed. But an adverse entry made by the third respondent that he had sufficient reason to doubt the integrity of the petitioner as also an order of withholding of his integrity are hereby set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----