1. The petitioner who is a Head constable in police department is aggrieved of adverse remarks purporting to have been recorded in his Character roll by concerned Commandant of JKAP which he seeks to be expunged. The remarks recorded are as follows: "The HC has been posted in the Bn from University on his repatriation. Ct. Farid Khan No. 216/Security reported that during his posting in University security, the HC has taken Rs. 10000/- from him to hushing up an absence case wherein the Ct. has been awarded major punishment. The issue of repayment has brought in my office, Dy. S.P Mohmd Aslam received Rs. 10000/- from the HC in cash and was paid to Ct. Paid Khan under proper receipt. Thus it is proved that HC Hamidullah No. 3/5 has been proved guilty of misusing his official position as Coy. Clerk and have taken Rs. 10000/-which was received in the presence of the officer and handed over to the claimant against receipt...." Sd/-Commandant JKAP 5th Bn. 2. Grounds pleaded in support of the prayer are that petitioner has an unblemished career at his credit during which he has undergone many trainings and received many rewards and certificates from his superiors but despite that he has been condemned unheard by the Commandant of JKAP 5th Battalion , i.e. respondent No.3 where from he was transferred to 9th Battalion under the command of respondent No.4 to whom his character roll was not sent by respondent No.3 despite demands due to which he filed an application for transfer of his character roll on 04.07.2003 whereupon the concerned officer recorded the adverse entries aforesaid at his back and without hearing him in any manner whatsoever much less any inquiry, which, besides being violative of the rules tells upon petitioners character also and is liable to be set aside as being malafide and arbitrary. 3. In their reply the respondents while objecting to maintainability of petition on the ground that petitioner has not exhausted alternative remedy available to him under rules, have also pleaded that petitioner was guilty of receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from a colleague constable namely Farid Khan to hush up his absence case and the consequent punishment awarded to him, on whose complaint regarding same the 3rd respondent sought a factual report from concerned Dy. 10,000/- from a colleague constable namely Farid Khan to hush up his absence case and the consequent punishment awarded to him, on whose complaint regarding same the 3rd respondent sought a factual report from concerned Dy. S.P namely Mohammad Aslam who was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the matter and submitted his factual report under No. D/V/174 dated: 29.03.2003. During course of submissions the rival counsel have reiterated the contents of their pleadings with reference to annexures on record. 4. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Admittedly the adverse entry complained of by petitioner has been recorded in his character roll by his Commandant who under Police Rules is competent to record such an entry. The only legitimate objection that can be taken, and as a matter of fact has been taken by petitioner, is that it was done without hearing him and thereby in violation of the rules. Before coming to substance of plea it may be appropriate to observe that an adverse entry in the character roll does not amount to punishment in terms of rule 334 of Police Rules and as such may not necessarily be preceded by an inquiry as envisaged under rule 359 thereof. In that view the petitioners plea that a regular inquiry should have been initiated before recording the entry in his character roll does not appear to be well founded. 5. At the same time, however, since an adverse entry has all the potential of blocking petitioners promotional avenues because under procedure prescribed in rules governing promotion of police officers, the entries in character roll have to be kept in consideration while framing promotion list in the concerned category. In that sense the entry operates adversely against the service career of petitioner and as such he deserved to have been heard before making the same. Incidentally however the rules do not provide any specific remedy to aggrieved personnel against whom the adverse entry has been recorded in the character roll. At the same time, as already said, such entries not amounting to any sort of punishment under the rules are not appealable also thereunder. The question, therefore, is that in case a police official suffers adverse entries in his character roll what should be departmental remedy available to him, before agitating the matter in a court. At the same time, as already said, such entries not amounting to any sort of punishment under the rules are not appealable also thereunder. The question, therefore, is that in case a police official suffers adverse entries in his character roll what should be departmental remedy available to him, before agitating the matter in a court. Ordinarily in parlance of Civil Service law such entries would be required to be communicated to concerned officer for being represented against and either confirmed or expunged in consideration of such representation. No analogous provision however exists in police rules. 6. It may be appropriate to recall that as per official file submitted by government counsel, petitioner is accused of having deducted Rs. 10,000/-from salary of one Farid Khan constable on the pretext that he would protect him against any punishment in a particular departmental inquiry that he was facing and gave him to understand that he had managed winding up of inquiry without any adverse entry against him. Later the said constable Farid Khan found that the inquiry had ended up in award of a measure punishment against him which prompted him to approach the petitioner and seek explanation from him whereafter he reported the matter to the Commandant who entrusted a fact finding inquiry to Dy. SP, Mohammad Aslam. As per his final report constable Farid Khan elucidated his allegations in his statement which was further supported by one constable No. 563 namely Mohmmad Shareer who stated that petitioner had handed over Rs. 10,000/- to him for being given to constable Farid Khan for restricting the matter to himself and not to report the same to any of his high ups which he refused to receive because he had already reported the matter. The said witness brought the money and matter to the notice of the Commandant who ordered the fact finding inquiry. While recording the statements the Enquiry Officer handed over the money to Farid Khan in presence of SI Naik Ram and another SI namely Makhan Lal whose statements are on the file alongwith those of the two aforesaid constables. With all this the concerned police officers in their wisdom chose to wind up the matter there, on recording the impugned adverse entry in petitioners character roll without however hearing him or communicating the same to him in any manner whatsoever. Even while the contents of Dy. With all this the concerned police officers in their wisdom chose to wind up the matter there, on recording the impugned adverse entry in petitioners character roll without however hearing him or communicating the same to him in any manner whatsoever. Even while the contents of Dy. SPs final factual report reveals commission of a criminal offence, no further action as envisaged under Police rules was taken in the matter. 7. In overall circumstances of the case, therefore, the petition is disposed of with direction that impugned adverse entries recorded in petitioners character roll be formally communicated to him for giving him opportunity to represent against the same before the authority who would have appellate powers had the petitioner suffered a punishment in terms of rule 334, who shall after considering the representation either confirm the adverse entry or have it expunge. The whole process be completed within a period of three months from now during which period the said entries may not be acted upon. Matter stands accordingly disposed of alongwith connected CMPs.