ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of 1992-93 and two other orders dated 18/20-10-1994 and 19/24-1-1995 rejecting the representation and review petitions : Annexures-A/2 and A/3 respectively. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was directly recruited on the post of "Industry Inspector" and he joined his services on 10-1-1984 at District Industry Centre, Shivpuri. Thereafter he was posted at Chhindwara for about 13 months, at Khandwa at about one year, at Betul for about four years, at Bhopal for about one year and lastly in Mandla. According to him, during these years, he worked honestly and sincerely. However, an adverse entry was communicated to him by letter dated 29-5-1993/7-6-1993 (Annexure-A/1) of the year 1992-93. As per petitioner, there was no complaint against him. The petitioner represented against Annexure-A/1 on 30-8-1993/2-9-1993, immediately after receiving of adverse ACR (Annexure-A/1). 3. On bare perusal of the representation Annexure-A/4, it is revealed that the representation was submitted by the petitioner in exhaustive manner indicating each and every minute details and by covering and replying each and every point mentioned in Annexure-A/1. Though this representation was addressed to Joint Director, Industries, but on bare perusal of Annexure-A/2 dated 18-10-1994/20-10-1994, it is revealed that it was considered by Commissioner, Industries and was dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed a review petition but the same was also rejected by the Commissioner, Industries, vide its order dated 19-1-1995/24-1-1995. Hence this petition. 5. It has been submitted by Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent No. 4 is biased against the petitioner. In order to substantiate his contention, he has invited my attention to the factual averments made in paras 6.10 and 6.12 of his petition. Inter-alia, it has also been contended by him that the approach of Commissioner, Industries, in rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner against his adverse ACR is arbitrary, since the order is non-speaking. It has also been canvassed by him that the same arbitrary action was committed by the said authority while rejecting his review petition vide Annexure-A/3 on 19-1-1995/24-1-1995 since that order is also a non-speaking one. 6. It has also been canvassed by him that the same arbitrary action was committed by the said authority while rejecting his review petition vide Annexure-A/3 on 19-1-1995/24-1-1995 since that order is also a non-speaking one. 6. Per contra, it has been contended by Shri A. P. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner, since he did not improve his work, adverse ACR was made against him for the year 1992-93. According to learned counsel for the State, this petition is devoid of any substance and the same be dismissed. 7. Considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. On bare perusal of Annexure-A/1 which is adverse ACR of the year 1992-93 of the petitioner, it is revealed that for certain reasons which are emphasised in paras 1 to 7, in his confidential report, he was not found upto the mark. The petitioner was asked to submit his representation against the adverse ACR. It be seen that very exhaustive representation was submitted by the petitioner against his adverse ACR and after stating all the facts and grounds, he gave Para wise reply refuting the points on the basis of which, adverse remarks were made against him. I have gone through the representation of petitioner (Annexure-A/4) and on going through it, it is revealed that not only the petitioner has refuted each and every point made against him, but, in very detail he has assigned reasons. Since, those averments are having nexus with the facts and were required to be worth considered, but, the authority did not pass any speaking order and rejected the representation by passing the following order : 8. According to me, the reply of petitioner Annexure A/4 is having some merit. However, since these averments are factual averments and no application of mind has been given to it by the authority while rejecting the representation, according to me, the authority has acted in arbitrary manner. In the case of Vaidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC 2218 the Apex Court has thrown sufficient light in this regard. It has been categorically held in this case that any representation against adverse entry should be considered on merit. In the case of Vaidyanath Mahapatra (supra) the representation was rejected by the authority on the ground of delay in making it. It has been categorically held in this case that any representation against adverse entry should be considered on merit. In the case of Vaidyanath Mahapatra (supra) the representation was rejected by the authority on the ground of delay in making it. In the present case, though representation has been rejected but without application of mind and thus, it cannot be said that it was rejected on its own merit. The purpose for quoting the rejection order of representation is that mechanically and without application of mind the same was rejected. According to me, the authority was duty bound to decide the representation by passing a speaking order, specially when the representation is exhaustive and also contains the reply of each and every point which is mentioned in Annexure-A/1. On bare perusal of the representation, it appears that there is some merit in it, but, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I cannot decide the representation because the averments made are factual in nature. Normally this Court should not go into the merit of the Annual Confidential Report and to quash it. It be seen that there is specific averments in the petition that except on one instance, the entire service career of the petitioner remained unblemished and only once he was erroneously suspended, however, immediately the suspension order was revoked. These facts are not denied in the return. In the case of State of M.P. v. Vishnu Datt Dubey, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 461 the Tribunal on the ground of excellent career of the employee quashed the Adverse Confidential Report and the matter was traveled upto the Apex Court and the Apex Court held that normally the Tribunal is not supposed to go into the merit of the Annual Confidential Report and quash it on the ground that there was no factual basis for recording the same, but in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court declined to interfere the order of the Tribunal on that point. Since, in Annexure-A/1 certain facts are narrated which are adverse to the petitioner and they have been refuted specifically by him in his representation, not only in detail, but clarifying each and every aspect of the matter, hence, it was the duty of the authority to decide the representation on its own merit by passing a speaking order. 9. Since, in Annexure-A/1 certain facts are narrated which are adverse to the petitioner and they have been refuted specifically by him in his representation, not only in detail, but clarifying each and every aspect of the matter, hence, it was the duty of the authority to decide the representation on its own merit by passing a speaking order. 9. The petitioner against rejection order Annexure-A/2 submitted review petition in detail but the same was dismissed in the same manner vide Annexure-A/3 which reads thus : 10. In this view of the matter, this is a fit case where the impugned orders Annexures-A/2 dated 18/20-10-1994 and A/3 dated 24-1-1995/19-1-1995 are required to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed. Industry Commissioner-respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to consider and re-decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure-A/4 sympathetically. Since it has been pleaded by the petitioner that on account of hostile attitude of respondent No. 4, adverse ACR (Annexure-A/1) was made, according to me, a personal hearing may be provided to the petitioner by the said authority. 11. In the result this petition succeeds in part and is hereby allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.