Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-hook. 2. Mr. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioner has put in 33 years of spotless service. His service record has been emaculate, except the ACR for the period July, 18, 1998 to March 20, 1999 (8 months). Only because of this ACR the petitioner has been ignored for promotion whereas his juniors have been promoted. According to the learned Sr. counsel the adverse remarks contained in the ACR, Annexure P1 deserve to be expunged as the same are based on the show cause notice dated 31.12.1999. Annexure P4. The Director General had issued a show-cause notice (annexure P4) to the petitioner for award of DGs displeasure. The show cause notice mentions that during the year 1998-1999 certain allegations had been levelled against the petitioner and on discreet enquiry followed by PE, the following misconduct has been found to be proved:- "i) Used highly derogatory and abusive language against HC Shiv Nand Dubey on 25.7.1998. ii) Awarded unprescribed punishment of "standing in the ground with kit box on his head" to HC Rameshwar Singh. iii) By defying the orders of Commandant sanctioned leave to Mahila contingent detailed for cultural programme." 3. Mr. Gupta has vehemently argued that since the copy of the preliminary enquiry report has not been made available to the petitioner, the aforesaid show cause notice deserves to be ignored. In any event, the misconduct which led to the recording of displeasure cannot be the basis of the ACR, Annexure P2. 4. The respondents have filed written statements controverting the stand taken by the petitioner. It is stated that the representation filed by the petitioner against the adverse remarks was considered. Certain remarks recorded in the ACR were corrected vide order dated 2.3.2000. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the recording of the ACR is an administrative act, and the scope of judicial review is very limited. He further submits that there are sufficient material on record to make the entries in the ACR. He submits that the petitioner is deliberately confusing the non-supply of the copy of the preliminary enquiry report with the recording of the ACR which has no bearing on the same. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. He submits that the petitioner is deliberately confusing the non-supply of the copy of the preliminary enquiry report with the recording of the ACR which has no bearing on the same. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the recording of the ACR cannot be said to be without reference to the relevant material. We have perused the record and find that there is sufficient relevant material for recording the ACR. The instances of misconduct quoted above clearly indicate the conduct which is against the good order and discipline of the force. In the order dated 25.7.2000, it has been clearly observed that the officers habit of using abusive language has further been corroborated by other material. The petitioner also could not produce any evidence in support of the stand taken by him. It is a settled proposition of law that when the ACRs are based on relevant consideration and there is material on the record to support the conclusion, the High Court would not substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the administrative body. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is limited to the examination of the decision making process. The High Court does not sit in appeal over the decision itself. Correctness or otherwise of the decision itself is not the scope of judicial review. We have also perused the preliminary enquiry report. We find that there is sufficient material in support of the conclusion reached by the respondents. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.