JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge. The order dated 15.2.2001 is reproduced, as under: "It is admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that no adverse order has been resulted on account of the adverse entries made in the A.C.R. of 1991- 92 of the petitioner and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.11.1993 (Annexure-16), that being the case I do not find any good or sufficient reason to admit the writ petition which is directed against the adverse entries. However, it is made clear that if the adverse entries result in any adverse order passed against the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to challenge the adverse order as well as the adverse entries made and communicated to him vide letter dated 25.11.1993 (Annex. 16). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of." It will be appear from the pleadings of the parties and the contents of the order itself that the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the appellant for the year 1991-92 which were communicated to him on 25.11.1993, did not result into any adverse order against him. The learned Single Judge therefore, declined to entertain the petition by saying that if the adverse entries result in any adverse order against him, he shall be at liberty to challenge the adverse orders as well as the adverse entries made and communicated to him vide letter dated 25.11.1993. This reasoning as has been given by the learned Single Judge is on the face of it untenable and it is not possible for us to agree with the same as in our considered opinion, it could hardly be a ground for the purposes of not entertaining the petition and dismissing it. In our opinion, the petitioner has a right to challenge the adverse entries even before the same are actually made use of against him for passing any order to his prejudice of which he may come to know only after the adverse order is passed when damage is already done. It is not necessary for him to wait for passing of any order against him on the basis of such adverse entries. It is not necessary for him to wait for passing of any order against him on the basis of such adverse entries. When the matter came up before us on 2.9.2002, after having heard the matter, we had expressed at initial stage that let the matter be remanded back to the learned Single Judge. However, Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the adverse remarks as recorded against him were pertaining to the year 1991-92 and by this time already 10 years' period has passed and in case the matter is now remanded back to the learned Single Judge, it will further prolong the agony of the petitioner to suffer the prolonged litigation for no fault on his part and, therefore, the matter may be heard and decided on merits.” 2. We found that the submissions of Mr. A.K. Sharma was reasonable and, therefore, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate was directed to come prepared to argue the case on merits along-with the relevant record. On 10.9.2002, when the matter came up before the Court, the learned counsel wanted time to take instructions from the concerned officer and submitted that the concerned officer shall remain present before the Court along-with the relevant record on the next date. The relevant record has been now placed before us. 3. We have gone through the record and find that the adverse remarks recorded against the appellant in the year 1992 were, as under: " vf/kdkjh }kjk ,d gh vof/k esa t;iqj esa jgdj ,e0fQy djus rFkk uhe dk Fkkuk ls ,u0lh0lh0 ijsM djokus dk nksgjk dk;Z HkRrk mBk fy;k x;k FkkA " 4. The factual matrix of the matter is that the appellant herein was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment on the post as above by the order dated 30.6.1984 wherein, his name appears at Sr. No. 81. It is also the case of the appellant that he had passed the Pre-Commission Certificate of the NCC on the basis of which he had undergone the training from 31.11.1982 to 27.2.1983 and the Principal of the Govt. College, Neem ka Thana has passed the order on 5.3.1983 that from 5.3.1983 onwards he would also do the work of NCC. It is also the case of the appellant that he had passed the Pre-Commission Certificate of the NCC on the basis of which he had undergone the training from 31.11.1982 to 27.2.1983 and the Principal of the Govt. College, Neem ka Thana has passed the order on 5.3.1983 that from 5.3.1983 onwards he would also do the work of NCC. It appears that the appellant was selected by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi as per its letter dated 30.3.1987 for Teacher Fellowship (M. Phil.) and this course of Teacher Fellowship was undertaken by the petitioner at the University of Rajasthan at Jaipur, last date for which was fixed ultimately as 19.10.1987 and accordingly he was relieved by the Principal of the Govt. College on 16.10.1987. The appellant completed this course of Fellowship as aforesaid and was conferred the Degree of Master of Philosophy from the Faculty of Social Sciences in September, 1988 by the University of Rajasthan. The document Annexure-11 shows that during the period of this Fellowship, he had drawn a sum of Rs. 9000/- all i.e. Rs. 750/- per month for the period of 17.10.1987 to 16.11.1988 and during this period while he was doing his fellowship at Jaipur, he also used to go to Neem ka Thana on Sundays and other Holidays for the NCC work as he had been permitted as per Annexure-14 issued by the Commanding Officer addressed to the Principal, Govt. College. Therefore, for the purposes of imparting this NCC training to the students on Sundays and on other holidays as and when he went to Neem ka Thana, he had drawn Rs. 250/- or Rs. 275/- per month. This act on the part of the appellant was made the subject matter of enquiry under Rule 16 of the RCS (CCA) Rules, 1958 against him alleging that while he was doing the Fellowship he had drawn a sum of Rs. 9000/- at Jaipur and simultaneously he had also drawn Rs. 250/- or Rs. 275/- per month for imparting NCC Training in the College at Neem ka Thana. Faced with such a situation, the appellant simply out of fear that lest he may not be in soup deposited Rs. 9000/- and thereafter when the adverse remarks were recorded and communicated to him he submitted representation dated 6.2.1994 (Annexure-17). This representation came up for consideration before the Government. 5. Faced with such a situation, the appellant simply out of fear that lest he may not be in soup deposited Rs. 9000/- and thereafter when the adverse remarks were recorded and communicated to him he submitted representation dated 6.2.1994 (Annexure-17). This representation came up for consideration before the Government. 5. Having gone through the relevant files, we find that the Reporting Officer i.e. Secretary to the Govt, while referring the matter to the High Power Committee opined that the adverse remarks should be expugned. This High Court Power Committee thought it proper to conduct a detailed enquiry on the allegation made against him from the Director of College Education before taking a decision as to whether the adverse remarks should be expunged or not. Relevant portion of the Minutes of this meeting dated 8.12.1994 are reproduced as under: "The remarks were conveyed to Shri Mool Chand who in his representation has denied the charges. The Reporting Officer is in favour of retention of the remarks. The Secretary, Higher Education has recommended that the adverse entry may be expunged. After examining the case the Committee was of the view that the Director, College Education may be asked to submit a detailed enquiry report as to the allegations made against Shri Mool Chand and a decision as to retention/expunction of the remarks may be taken only after the receipt of the report from the Director." 6. Thereafter, the matter again came up before the same Committee on 19.12.1996. In the minutes of this meeting also, it was recorded that the Administrative Department wanted to expunge the remarks but after taking note of the enquiry report as made by the Director and the relevant record, the Committee took the view that the remarks be retained and the Integrity Certificate may not be restored and accordingly, the communication dated 6.5.1997 was sent to the appellant informing him that there was no reason to expunge the adverse remarks as per Annexure-18. 7. We have heard learned counsel and have also gone through the pleadings of the parties before us, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the relevant record. 8. 7. We have heard learned counsel and have also gone through the pleadings of the parties before us, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the relevant record. 8. It is obvious from the record that before recording the adverse remarks against the appellant with regard to his integrity, the procedure and the instructions as are laid down by the Govt, itself were not followed and without following that procedure the adverse remarks were recorded against him and in our opinion there was no legal impediment against him for drawing the amount of Rs. 250/- or Rs. 275/- per month for imparting the NCC training on Sundays and other Holidays at Neem ka Thana as the amount of Rs. 9000/- was received by him after sanction by the UGC as fellowship for doing M. Phil, at Jaipur. In our opinion, the adverse remarks recorded against him were wholly misconceived and such allegation could not form any subject matter for adverse remark and ought not to have been recorded much less without following the procedure. It also appears that in this regard the questions were raised in the Assembly in March 1992 and thereafter these remarks were recorded. 9. We find that the Committee also did not give any reasoning as to why the adverse remarks should be retained and what were the contents of report on the basis of which the remarks were retained against him. We find that even if he had deposited a sum of Rs. 9000/- that did not speak anything against his integrity. Withholding somebody's integrity is a very serious matter and Adverse Remarks, as a matter of fact, give the whole image of an officer. The adverse remarks in the officer's A.C.R. leave an indelible imprint on the service career and such remarks cannot be allowed to be based on whims, fancies and caprice of any officer. We find that the appellant was subjected to gross injustice right from the beginning. The appellant was not at all guilty or wrong and there was no basis even to raise a little finger against his integrity and he was within his rights to take Rs. 9000/- of fellowship as well as the N.C.C. allowance of Rs. 250/- or Rs. 275/- p.m. Therefore, in our opinion, these remarks cannot be sustained. These remarks are hereby expunged. 9000/- of fellowship as well as the N.C.C. allowance of Rs. 250/- or Rs. 275/- p.m. Therefore, in our opinion, these remarks cannot be sustained. These remarks are hereby expunged. The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the revision of pay scales from time to time and from the due date and all other benefits in the service matters which he would have otherwise got had these remarks been not recorded against him. The communication dated 6.5.1997 is declared to be illegal and the appellant's integrity certificate be restored. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we also award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the appellant to which he shall be duly entitled, in case, a sum of Rs. 9000/- deposited by the appellant is not returned by the Government to him.The Special Appeal is allowed with the directions as above.Special Appeal Allowed. *******