Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is to the order dated 13.07.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CW 52/1998 vide which adverse remarks recorded in the Confidential Record of the petitioner, arrayed as respondent in the present appeal, were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed with cost, quantified at Rs. five thousand. 2. The detailed facts given by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned Judgment , need no reiteration. Suffice it, however, to mention that on an anonymous complaint received by the appellant department that the petitioner was living in a rented house at Jaisalmer, his place of posting, which belonged to some prostitute and that he was having illicit relations with some other prostitute, a report was called from the Additional Commissioner Excise, Jodhpur, who on 210.1996 made a formal visit to Jaisalmer, and on some inquiry found that the petitioner was living in a rented house belonging to one Meena, who was a prostitute. After asking for an explanation from the petitioner, final opinion was formed that the petitioner was living in a rented house of some prostitute and by this conduct of the petitioner, image of the department had been tarnished. In the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner thus, the Commissioner recorded following remarks:- "He had loose moral character, which tarnished the image of the department." 3. The remarks were communicated to the petitioner, who made a detailed representation which was rejected vide communication dated 15.07.1997. 4. The petitioner successfully challenged the adverse remarks recorded in his Confidential Record, as also the order rejecting his representation. 5. The learned Single Judge noted that all columns filled in by the Reporting Officer were Good or Very Good and the Reviewing Officer had not commented against the petitioner. After the Reporting Officer had sent the papers to the Reviewing Officer, a letter dated 25.01.1997 written by Rajendra Singh Rajvi had been placed on record, and the remarks under challenge before the learned Single Judge, were recorded. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that a very serious aspersion has been cast on the petitioner without considering his representation. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that a very serious aspersion has been cast on the petitioner without considering his representation. It has also been noted that the petitioner, before making his representation, had asked for a copy of the complaint and that the petitioner stated in his representation that there were as many as five officials working in Jaisalmer in Excise department and the office is located in Talaria Pada and that he had taken a house on rent adjacent to the office which was closed to the market and the bus-stand. He had also stated in the representation that there was shortage of houses on rent in Jaisalmer and it is a difficult task to get a house on rent there because of its tourist importance. The house taken by him on rent belonged to one Asha Devi and the landlady was staying with her mother in another house situated one kilometer away from the rented house. There were another tenant living in the ground floor. The petitioner was living on the first floor with a separate entrance. He had also mentioned in his representation that he had neither relations nor any connection with any other tenant and the rent was being sent through the clerk. The learned Single Judge also made a reference to the other pleas made by the petitioner in his representation and held that the representation was rejected by one-line order saying that the adverse report already communicated, shall stand. The operative part of the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge reads as follows:- "After hearing Counsel for parties, I am of the opinion that in peculiar circumstances of this case, where character of an employee has been marked as of "loose character" and that "he had tarnished the image of the department", but without any detail or circumstances, which had compulsion on Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer to pass such remark, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The petitioner was not told of any ground for warranting such remarks. He had asked for the copy of the complaint, which was refused. After gathering the information from his own sources, the petitioner made representation giving therein the facts, which representation has been rejected without any reason. Even though it is not necessary to pass a reasoned order, but such reasons must prevail on the record. He had asked for the copy of the complaint, which was refused. After gathering the information from his own sources, the petitioner made representation giving therein the facts, which representation has been rejected without any reason. Even though it is not necessary to pass a reasoned order, but such reasons must prevail on the record. The Courts have invariably held that the instructions were issued by Government that adverse remarks are not to be given lightly or its own subjective opinion, it should be based on facts. Even though the remarks are normally given in regard to official duties but may be in circumstances the reputation of the officer concerned is an important factor for impeaching integrity of officer vis a vis official duties. In the totality of the circumstances, in my opinion, the adverse remark communicated to petitioner in regard to his loose character and tarnishing the image of department, was not made on any objective assessment, nor there is any material on record to warrant such an assessment except one letter of Additional Commissioner Excise which had been attached with APAR to which Reviewing Officer had agreed. Such action of respondents is definitely not sustainable in the eye of law and is illegal for casting such aspersion on the petitioner without there being any basis and without any inquiry even against the principles of natural justice; Consequently the adverse remark as contained in Annexure-2 and the order (Annexure-6) of rejection of representation are quashed." 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the adverse remarks contained in the ACR of petitioner were based on an inquiry. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record of the case and in particular the so-called report which is stated to have come into being after making a proper inquiry. In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, we however find no merit whatsoever in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the report, which is said to have come into being after making inquiry, seems to be an outcome to hearsay evidence, so-much-so even the name of persons from whom inquiries were made, were not mentioned. A perusal of the report, which is said to have come into being after making inquiry, seems to be an outcome to hearsay evidence, so-much-so even the name of persons from whom inquiries were made, were not mentioned. On the basis of records shown to us during the course of arguments, we do not find that any proper inquiry was made before recording the adverse remarks in the ACR of petitioner. That apart, it is conceded during the course of arguments that no material was placed before the petitioner on the basis of which the adverse remarks came to be recorded. It is no doubt true that recording of adverse remarks in ACR of an employee depend upon subjective satisfaction of the Reporting Officer and normally it should not be set aside, but it is too well settled by now that for recording adverse remarks, the material on which the said remarks are based, has to be brought to the notice of the concerned employee and explanation has to be sought from him. Nothing like that was done in this case. The adverse remarks came to be recorded after a casual inquiry which is based upon hearsay evidence. Adverse remarks like the one which were given to the petitioner no doubt would adversely affect him in his service, the same thus cannot sustain. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the kind of report on the basis of which alone remarks came into being without a proper inquiry, as also that the petitioner was not shown or appraised of any material on the basis of which the said remarks were recorded, we find no merit whatsoever in this appeal and thus dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.