Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Petitioner has filed this writ petition for expunction of adverse marks recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report ("APAR") of the year 2001-02 conveyed vide letter dated 21.07.2003 (Annexure-2), so also rejection of his representation vide order Dated 05.03.2004 (Annexure-7). 2. Petitioner initially joined Rajasthan Police Service in the year 1982 after due selection by Rajasthan Public Service Commission and was promoted in senior and selection Scale of RPS in the years 1991 and 1996-97 respectively. In his APAR for the year 1997-98, certain adverse remarks were noted against which he preferred CWP No. 9018/2002 before this Court which was decided vide order dated 13.08.2004 and pursuant to which his representation was considered and adverse remarks of APAR 1997-98 were expunged by Government. 3. For the year 2001-02, while petitioner was posted as Addlitional Superintendent of Police, CID (CB), where Deputy Inspector General of Police, RAC Range II, was his reporting officer, rated him as Outstanding Officer and Reviewing Officer was Additional Director General of Police, CID (Crimes) who too agreed with rating and assessment made by Reporting Officer and further observed, "An experience and hardworking Police Officer. Doing very well in the CID". But, the Accepting Authority (Director General of Police) observed, "Much over-rated. He is only real average quality officer and inclined to get controversial". However, respondents considered APAR Part IVs remark made by Accepting Officer, "inclined to get controversial" as adverse, which was communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 21.07.2003, against which he submitted detailed representation dated 06.08.2003 (Annexure-3) pointing out inter alia that during period in question he was not holding any decision making post and all decisions, if taken by him, were finally approved by his reporting and reviewing officer and that apart, no incident or event which could give the Accepting Officer, the basis for recording impugned adverse remark, has been reported by him nor reasons to record adverse remarks has been supplied to him; and therefore, what has been communicated to him is too vague which has unable him to give any explanation thereto and throughout his service career has been even otherwise remain either outstanding or very good and in that view of matter, he prayed for expunction of impugned adverse remark where his detailed representation has been rejected by respondents by non-speaking order, as referred to in Para (iv) of their reply. 4. 4. Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that service of petitioner has throughout been not only rated as very good but also was appreciated by his superiors vide certificates produced collectively as Annexure 1, but without assigning any reason despite the fact that his Reporting and Reviewing Officers have rated him as excellent officer, under whose subordination he has directly worked during period in question, the Accepting Officer had no occasion to examine his work performance directly or indirectly and he was not called upon at any point of time to report to him and without assigning any reason and making objective assessment, recorded remarks in question, which was clearly in violation of instructions issued by State Government vide circular dated 30.03.1976 regarding APARs of employees holding posts in State/Subordinate/Ministerial and Class IV service, so also in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel further contends that 1976 Instructions, ibid, casts an obligation upon Reporting/Reviewing Officer so also next higher officer in hierarchy that if remark at any stage has to be downgraded, the authority has to record reasons or justification while recording adverse remarks in APAR, as has been observed in DOP Circular No. E.13(51) DOP/ACR/96 dated 03.04.1998, but no opportunity was afforded to petitioner before down grading and no reasons or justification has been communicated to him and since, it certainly adversely affect him while his candidature for further promotion is considered, it has resulted in jeoparadising his right of consideration for further promotion in higher echelon of service. 5. Respondents in reply to writ petition inter alia averred that the Accepting Officer is final authority for all practical purpose and after observing his over all performance of the year in question and observation made by Reporting and Reviewing Officer, remarks have been recorded, for which no reasons are required to be contributed or communicated particularly when it is based on personal satisfaction of the authority and in such circumstances, what has been recorded as adverse remarks communicated to him is in accordance with and consonance of 1976 Instructions and after remarks were recorded, they were communicated to petitioner and after taking his representation into consideration as there was no merit it was rejected and consequently retained adverse remarks. 6. 6. Counsel for respondent urged that judicial review is permissible of decision making process and not of decision, itself and in present case, adequate opportunity was afforded to petitioner and procedure provided under 1976 instructions have been completely followed and there is no error committed in process adopted in finally retaining adverse remarks in question. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in H.B. Gandhi vs. Gopinath & Sons., 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312. 7. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. 8. As regards object to record APARs, it has been considered by Apex Court in State of UP vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra, 1997 (4) SCC P.7 as under: -"....The Officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports, has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the Subordinate Officer. It should be founded upon facts or circumstances." "Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the Reporting Officers writing confidential should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the Judgment , conduct, behaviour, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. If , despite being given such opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself , necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him". Similarly in P.K. Sastri vs. State of MP, 1999 (7) SCC 329 , Apex Court held as under : -".....The CRs of an officer are basically the performance appraisal of the said officer and go to constitute vital service record in relation to his career advancement. Any adverse remark in the CRs can mar the entire career of that officer. Similarly in P.K. Sastri vs. State of MP, 1999 (7) SCC 329 , Apex Court held as under : -".....The CRs of an officer are basically the performance appraisal of the said officer and go to constitute vital service record in relation to his career advancement. Any adverse remark in the CRs can mar the entire career of that officer. Therefore, it is necessary that in the event of a remark being called for in the confidential records, the authority directing such remark must first come to the conclusion that the facts situation is such that it is imperative to make such remarks to set right the wrong committed by the officer concerned. A decision in this regard must be taken objectively after careful consideration of all the materials which are before the authority directing the remarks being entered in the CRs". 9. The decision to reject representation is purely an administrative action of the Government as has been considered by Apex Court in Union of India vs. E.G. Nambudiri, 1991(3) SCC 38 holding that while rejecting such representations reasons are not required to be communicated but when the matter comes for adjudication before the Court for judicial review, respondents are under obligation to disclose material to the Court on the basis of which the authority took decision for rejecting representation. Relevant observations are as under : ".... Therefore, in the absence of any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejecting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries the competent authority is not under any obligation to record reasons. But the competent authority has no licence to act arbitrarily, it must act in a fair and just manner. It is required to consider the questions raised by the Government servant and examine the same, in the light of the comments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer countersigning the same. If the representation is rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. However, it is does not mean that the administrative authority is at a liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. If the representation is rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. However, it is does not mean that the administrative authority is at a liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. In Governmental functioning before any order is issued the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes on the file. The reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion, if such an order is challenged in a Court of law, it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the Court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence aliunde before the Court to justify its action". 10. This Court has occasioned to deal with 1976 Instructions in Richhpal Singh vs. State, 1992(2) WLC 669, wherein it has been observed that although these instructions are administrative in nature, nevertheless they are binding on the Officers of the Government, who act as Reporting or Reviewing Officers. While following the principles laid down by Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. P.C. Wadhwa, AIR 1987 SC 1201 this Court held that even if the administrative instructions issued by Government are not having statutory force, they must be substantially complied with. This Court further observed : - "....The Government which has issued the instructions and the officers, who are bound to act in conformity with the administrative instructions and whose actions are the actions of the Government, must be held to be bound by these administrative instructions. The administrative authorities, which declare that their actions will be governed by certain standards must adhere to those standards. Arbitrary departure from such instructions will vitiate the action taken by such authorities". In M.A. Rajasekhar vs. State of Karnataka, 1996 (10) SCC 369 , Apex Court observed as under : -"It is now settled law that object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence of an officer on merits and performance of an officer concerned so as to grade him in various categories as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory and average, etc. The competent authority and the reviewing authority have to at fairly or objectively in assessing the character, integrity and performance of the incumbent". In the said case, adverse remarks were recorded where his integrity was not doubted and his work was also in all respect found to be satisfactory but still remark was recorded "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma", it was considered and Apex Court in Para 5 observed as under : - "the remark that he "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma" must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did not perform that duty satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. He should be given an opportunity in the cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given. Even when he acted in a dilemma and lacked objectivity, in such circumstances, he must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he acted upon. Since this exercise has not been done by the respondents, it would be obvious that the above adverse remark was not consistent with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The adverse remark stands expunged". 11. Thus it cannot be disputed that APARs are sole basis for service career of employees and future career of officer/employee depend upon these reports, remarks if any recorded, may mar or bless his service career and sometimes may boost but can also be used to serious prejudice of employee for his future service prospects. It is only an over all performance of work, integrity and conduct of employee, which can be examined for safeguarding an interest of employee but it may be in consonance with principles of natural justice. That being so, State Government issued 1976 Instructions with an object to make an objective assessment of the performance of an employee. Its Clause 12 deals levels of assessment, which lays down that the assessment be made at two levels (1) immediate Superior Officer will be the Reporting Officer and (ii) next higher officer (in the hierarchy) of Reporting Officer will be the Reviewing Officer; and where, however, higher officers are in knowledge of facts and they feel to make some comments regarding assessment of the officer reported upon, they may record their own observations. In present case, Reporting and Reviewing Officer, both have rated petitioner as excellent officer and even Reviewing authority has further rated him experienced and hardworking police officer doing very well in the CID. Thus in over-all, both have reported positive assessment of his performance. But while down grading positive report of both the authorities, ibid, no reasons or justification has been assigned by Accepting Officer, as is required vide Government circular dated 03.04.1998 which reads as under : - "It has been observed that the APARs of the State Service Officers are sometimes downgraded by Reviewing/Accepting authority, without giving any reasons or justifications and it becomes difficult to properly defend such cases in Courts. The Supreme Court has also recently held that proper reasons must be recorded while down grading the APAR rating of a Reportee Officer. Accordingly it has been decided that the Reviewing/Accepting authorities should invariably record detailed reasons/justifications if APARs of the Reportee Officers are downgraded by them". 12. During course of hearing, I asked Government Counsel to produce material on the basis of which, the Accepting Officer down graded assessment of performance of petitioner recorded by Reporting/Reviewing Officer, but he was unable to place anything to support downgrading of assessment in question. However, the Government Counsel produced note sheet where his representation was considered against impugned adverse remarks and even after going through that note sheet, I find that neither representation made by him has been considered objectively nor any reason has been assigned for downgrading over all assessment of petitioners performance as recorded by Reviewing authority. 13. In instant case, indisputably, the Accepting authority has downgraded assessment of petitioner recorded by Reporting and Reviewing authorities, and recorded adverse remarks communicated, "inclined to get controversial" but before recording the same, no opportunity was afforded to petitioner and there was no material to support the same. This fact remained undisputed that petitioner has not worked indirectly or directly under the Accepting Officer at any point of time during the year 2001-02. This fact remained undisputed that petitioner has not worked indirectly or directly under the Accepting Officer at any point of time during the year 2001-02. That apart, as against impugned adverse remarks, detailed representation was submitted by petitioner while giving out full details of his preceding work performance, but from the record placed before me whereunder his representation was considered at Para 163/N, I find that there was no material even before the authority upholding impugned remarks; and only fact which has been considered in Para 164/N, is as to how petitioner came to know about remarks about entry recorded by Reporting/Reviewing authorities in APARs and finally it was expressed that what has been recorded was not based on any prejudice or without due considerations. It is true that it is personal satisfaction of the Accepting authority but it should be based on objective assessment assigning reasons to downgrade the assessment recorded by Reporting/Reviewing authorities especially when Government instructions vide circular dated 03.04.1998 (Supra) makes it obligatory. Counsel for respondents has failed to show any justification or reason in order to support objective assessment alleged to have been made by the Accepting authority. I have also examined his other service dossier and I find that in his preceding and succeeding APARs, he has been rated as good officer and adverse remarks communicated to petitioner are not supported by any material on record inasmuch as was not based on objective assessment recorded by Accepting Authority which has even failed to give any reason or justification for downgrading performance of petitioner recorded by Reporting/Reviewing Officers despite the Government circular dated 03.04.1998 where the authority is under obligation to record reasons/ justification if APARs of the Reportee Officer are downgraded and having failed to do so, it has caused not only prejudice to petitioners right of consideration but also resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and this being a manifest illegality, which deserves to be set aside. 14. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The adverse remark, "inclined to get controversial" communicated to petitioner vide order dated 21.07.2003 (Annexure-2) for the year 2001-02, are hereby expunged and the petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits flowing from expunging of impugned adverse remarks. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to Respondent No. 1 for immediate compliance.