JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the adverse entries communicated to him vide Letter No. 420 dated 23.2.1993 (Annexure 5) and Letter No. 1639 dated 30.8.1993 (Annexure 6) with regard to 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. Both the entries are similar. They are as follows: This officer was incharge of procurement of lost materials for Bokaro B Plant. It is now found that many items which were not stolen were reported as stolen and replacement procured against them. It is also found that the Corporation will not be able to recover money from Insurance. It is also seen that M/s. AIGAM who were paid Rs. 40 lakhs for preparation of a list of lost materials were not done so. There are many other irregularities. The case is being investigated. It is reported that the Corporation has suffered a loss of crores of rupees. I will grade this officer as "Poor". 2. Mr. Saurav Arun, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the General Manager had no authority to record the said adverse entries. He further submitted that no enquiry or proceeding has ever been initiated against the petitioner with regard to the allegation made in the said adverse remarks as stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition which has been replied in paragraph 33 of the counter affidavit by simply saying that the statements made therein are matters of record. 3. From the original A.C.R. of the petitioner called for, it appears that there it specific column with regard to the remarks of General Manager/Chairman. Even from paragraphs 8 and 12 of the show cause filed by he petitioner against the said adverse remarks, it will appear that petitioner admitted that the General Manager was competent to make such remarks. Thus this submission cannot be accepted. But on other grounds, the said remarks cannot be sustained. 4. In the impugned adverse remarks, it was, inter alia, said that the case is being investigated. On 13.9.2006, this Court directed the respondents to produce the original A.C.R. of the petitioner and the present position of investigation, if any. 5. Mr. Thus this submission cannot be accepted. But on other grounds, the said remarks cannot be sustained. 4. In the impugned adverse remarks, it was, inter alia, said that the case is being investigated. On 13.9.2006, this Court directed the respondents to produce the original A.C.R. of the petitioner and the present position of investigation, if any. 5. Mr. U.K. Jha, appearing for the respondents, submitted that he wrote to the respondents for sending the original A.C.R. and the present position of investigation of the petitioner, if any, but he received only the original copy of the A.C.R. and did not receive any reply with regard to the investigation, if any. Thus the respondents have lot brought on record any thing to show that any departmental enquiry of any criminal case was instituted against the petitioner with regard to the serious allegation made against him in the adverse remarks. 6. Moreover the Reporting Officer recorded the remarks as "Very Good" in both the years i.e. 1991-92 and 1992-93 but the General Manager recorded the aforesaid remarks. The remarks were communicated to the petitioner, against which he filed representation, but it was rejected without communicating him, the reasons for differing with the assessment of the Reporting Officer. 7. In the circumstances, I am left with no option than to hold that the said adverse entries made against the petitioner vide Annexures 5 and 6 cannot be sustained. 8. From the counter affidavit, it appears that due to the said adverse remarks, the petitioner could not score the bench marks fixed by the Departmental Promotion Committee and, therefore on four occasions, his case was not considered/recommended. It is reported that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.1.2004. 9. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law with regard to the promotional and other consequential retirement benefits within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the impugned adverse entries dated 23.2.1993 and 30.8.1993 (Annexures 5 and 6) are quashed and this writ petition is allowed. However, no costs. The original A.C.Rs. of the petitioner for the said two years, produced by Mr. Jha, is returned to him.