Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Vide order dated 18.1.88 passed by the Punjab Government and conveyed through Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Admn.), Patiala plaintiff T.S. Sachdeva, his representation for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1981-82 was rejected. He challenged that order by means of suit for declaration saying that the order is wrong, illegal, void, capricious without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, fair play, equity and against the terms and conditions of employment and the provisions of Punjab Civil Service of (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1970 and against the government instructions governing the recording of the ACRs. In ACR for the year 1981-82, the following adverse remarks were incorporated: "i) Your quality of judgment, promptness, sense of responsibility and inspection are poor; ii) Your integrity is also doubtful; iii) you are ineffective and incorrigible officer." 2. It was alleged by him that his representation was rejected through a cryptic order dated 18.1.1988. In fact the order rejecting his representation was passed as a measure of punishment. He had made detailed representation which could not rejected through a non speaking order. Contentions raised by him were not met by the authorities who rejected his representation. No reason was assigned in the order rejecting his representation. There was no occasion for recording adverse remarks. Adverse remarks were unwarranted. There was not even a single instance, either in writing, or otherwise, against him during the period under report suggesting that he was lacking in anything. Before these remarks were recorded, he was not warned by the reporting officer to improve or else he would incorporate adverse comment upon his integrity etc. in his ACR. How could the reporting officer assess his work when he had no occasion to closely see and watch his work directly? Remarks that the plaintiff is ineffective and incorrigible are also unknown to law and are based on malice. Remarks of the reporting officer are purely conjectural not supported by concrete instances whereas the instructions of the government are that every adverse remarks has to be supported by concrete instances. Reporting officer should have based his opinion about his wok on the material which may be in his possession. Adverse remarks pertaining to the year 1981-82 were conveyed to him in February, 1983 which is contrary to the rules and departmental instructions. Reporting officer should have based his opinion about his wok on the material which may be in his possession. Adverse remarks pertaining to the year 1981-82 were conveyed to him in February, 1983 which is contrary to the rules and departmental instructions. Reporting officer recorded adverse remarks on the basis of some suspicion. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. It was a case of "no evidence". No material was available with the reporting officer at the time of incorporating adverse remarks against him in his ACR for the year 1981-82. 3. State contested the suit urging that the adverse remarks are not challengeable. Adverse remarks conveyed to the plaintiff were maintainable and were duly based on the assessment of the reporting officer who had also apprised the plaintiff of his shortcomings in writing at the relevant time vide memo dated 17.3.1982. His reputation was not good because there were complaints against him. His representation was rejected after due consideration. Remarks were not given as a measure of punishment. Remarks were based on the material available with the reporting officer. There was one complaint from M/s National Drug House, Ferozepur and the other was from M/s Vijay Kumar Krishan Lal, Guru Harsahal. Both these complaints were relating to misbehaviour and demanding illegal gratification by the plaintiff. A large number of dealers of Ferozepur and Guruharsahai came in deputation to the reporting officer to complain against behaviour and causing harassment by delaying grant of RC with ulterior motives. Dealers Association Guruharsahai went on strike on 13.11.81 against his behaviour and corruption. 4. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed by Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 2.8.1990. Plaintiff went in appeal which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 2.8.1991. 5. State of Punjab has come up in appeal against the decision of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur and has prayed that this decision be set aside and the decision of Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur be restored. 6. In this appeal, the following question of law arises;- "Whether the recording of ACR was a matter of subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned and the correctness thereof cannot be gone into by the Civil Court?" 7. In my opinion, this appeal should succeed. 6. In this appeal, the following question of law arises;- "Whether the recording of ACR was a matter of subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned and the correctness thereof cannot be gone into by the Civil Court?" 7. In my opinion, this appeal should succeed. In Chander Singh Negi v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) R.S.J. 567, it was held that recording of annual confidential report is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned. Correctness thereof cannot be gone into by civil Court. Instructions contained in the manual of instructions on service matters in regard to the recording of confidential reports are in the nature of guide-lines and instructions for internal consumption by the officer for recording ACRs. If they are followed, it is a matter for the reviewing officer to consider but they cannot be enforced by the courts. In State of Punjab v. Janak Raj Jain, I.L.R. 1987(1) P&H 412, it was held that the recording of ACR is, in essence, subjective and administrative and the making of an adverse entry is not equivalent to imposition of penalty which would necessitate an inquiry and the giving of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the government servant concerned. It was also observed that as the recording of annual confidential reports was a matter of subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned, the correctness thereof cannot be gone into by the Civil Court. The proper remedy for the person aggrieved would be to file a representation against the adverse remarks. 8. Shri T.S. Sachdeva has not brought on record any instance suggesting of malice on the part of the reporting officer, while recording that his integrity was doubtful, his quality of judgment, promptness, sense of responsibility and inspection were poor and he was an ineffective and incorrigible officer. 9. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the inquiry into the complaint of Sh. Vijay Kumar was made. Allegations of the complainant were not substantiated. He also submitted that show cause notice given to him under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was not proceeded with when his reply thereto was found satisfactory. Departmental proceedings against him were dropped. Vijay Kumar was made. Allegations of the complainant were not substantiated. He also submitted that show cause notice given to him under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was not proceeded with when his reply thereto was found satisfactory. Departmental proceedings against him were dropped. Recording of adverse remarks in ACR for the year 1981-1982 has noting to do with these events as the reporting officer, after close watch on his work and conduct, found that his integrity was doubtfully and that his quality or judgment, promptness, sense of responsibility and inspection were poor. 10. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dated 2.8.1993 are set aside and those of Senior Sub-Judge, Ferozepure dated 2.8.1990 are restored.