JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 27th July, 2005 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Personnel (Ka- 1/Conf.Rep.) Department, whereby his representation to expunge adverse remarks in his confidential report for the year 2003-04 was partly allowed and partly rejected. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer in the year 1981 and he was promoted on the post of Commercial Taxes Officer in the year 1996. Thereafter he was promoted on the post of Assistant Commissioner purely on merit on regular basis vide order dated 9th December, 2004. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Dungarpur during the period from 19th July, 2003 to 4th October, 2004. Vide letter dated 4th January, 2005 (Annexure-3), the petitioner was informed about his adverse remarks in his confidential report for the year 2003-04 and was asked to submit a representation against it, if he feels so aggrieved within a period of one month. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure-4) in this regard along-with necessary enclosures. The said representation was decided vide order dated 27th July, 2005 (Annexure-5) whereby the adverse remarks relating to "integrity" was set-aside, but other remarks relating to "unsatisfactory work etc." were maintained. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Maloo contended that the petitioner was posted at Dungarpur on 19th July, 2003. The adverse remarks relates to the year 2003-04, meaning thereby relevant period is from 19th July, 2003 to 31st March, 2004. As per D.O. letter dated 13th April, 2004 (Annexure-6), the reporting officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur, appreciated the work of the petitioner in respect of his work during the year 2003-04. A copy of the letter dated 6th April, 20043 written by Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department regarding satisfactory achievement of revenue target was also annexed along-with the above letter. He contended that when the work of the petitioner of the year 2003-04 was appreciated by the reporting authority soon after closer of financial year, then where was the occasion to make an adverse entry against the petitioner in respect of his work for the year 2003-04. He contended that when the work of the petitioner of the year 2003-04 was appreciated by the reporting authority soon after closer of financial year, then where was the occasion to make an adverse entry against the petitioner in respect of his work for the year 2003-04. He further contended that he submitted a representation running in about 100 pages along-with all necessary documents showing that revenue targets were satisfactorily achieved in the relevant year by the petitioner, but the same were not considered and only by a non speaking order, the rest part of adverse remarks relating to unsatisfactory work was maintained, which is liable to be set-aside by this Court. He further submits that the impugned order suffers from malice in law as it is arbitrary and it is based on no material to support it. He also referred the relevant annexures to show that in comparison to previous or earlier years, the revenue targets achieved by the petitioner in the year 2003-2004 were more better. He further contended that the adverse remarks regarding work and performance have been retained out of prejudice without any consideration and application of mind to the relevant facts including the detailed representation of the petitioner. While the facts reveal that the performance of the petitioner was the best in the entire State, but he has been chosen for adverse remarks, whereas none other officer has been given such remarks during the relevant period or in the preceding years. He also contended that impugned order does not show as to when and what advise was given to the petitioner regarding his work and performance during the year. He also referred the statistics and contended that the same clearly reveal that performance of petitioner was the best and revenue collection in his jurisdiction increased by 242% in comparison to the previous year, therefore, it clearly shows that the adverse remarks have been entered solely with the ulterior motive of adversely affecting his promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner and to the benefit of someone else. The timing of giving adverse remarks is deliberate. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order be quashed and set-aside. 5. The learned counsel for the State defended the impugned order and contended that the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the respondents objectively and only thereafter the impugned order was passed. The timing of giving adverse remarks is deliberate. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order be quashed and set-aside. 5. The learned counsel for the State defended the impugned order and contended that the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the respondents objectively and only thereafter the impugned order was passed. The reviewing officer has already setaside or expunged the remarks relating to "integrity". He further contended that no malafide has been attributed against any person or the reporting or reviewing officer so as to hold that the impugned order suffers from malafide or it is arbitrary. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the documents annexed with the writ petition and also the contents of reply filed on behalf of the respondents. The adverse remarks which were communicated to the petitioner in respect of year 2003-04 along-with letter dated 4th January, 2005 are reproduced as under: " Jh eksgu yky fot; ( tUe fn0 5-1-53 ) ds o"kZ 2003&2004 ds okf"kZd dk;Z ewY;kadu izfrosnu esa vafdr izfrdwy@lykgdkjh izfof"V;ksa dh lwph%& 1- izfrdwy izfof"V;ka%& 1- dk;Z ifj.kke ------------- vlUrks"kin 2- igy djus dh ;ksX;rk -------------- vlUrks"kin 3- 2 ( d ) lkekU; ewY;kadu%& vf/kdkjh dks dkuwu dh tkudkjh gS ysfdu bldk mi;ksx futh ykHk ds fy, djrk gSA jktLo y{;ksa dh iwfrZ ugha dh A jruiqj pSdiksLV ij Hkz"Vkpkj QSyk;k] Mwaxjiqj o ckalokM+k ftyksa esa izfrdjkioapu xfrfof/k;ka izHkkoh <+ax ls djus ds ctk; djkioapu esa O;olkf;dksa dks enn dhA jkT; 'kklu ij cks> gSA 4- D;k vkidh tkudkjh esa ,slh dksbZ ckr vkbZ gS tks vf/kdkjh dh lR;fu"Bk vFkok mlds }kjk dRrZO; dk bZekunkjh ls ikyu djus dh ;ksX;rk ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkyrh gS gka rks mlds ckjs esa fooj.k nhft,%& gka dq[;kr ifjogudrkZvksa ls lkaB&xkaB dj foHkkx dks ?kkVk igqapk;kA pSdiksLV jruiqj ij HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ls ekfld jkf'k cka/kus dh f'kdk;rsa feyhA 5- le; ewY;kadu%& " vlUrks"kizn " 6- izfrosnu vf/kdkjh dk le; ewY;kadu%& " vlUrks"kizn " 2- lykgdkjh&fVIi.kh%& 2 ( [k ) o"kZ ds nkSjku fd;s x;s dk;kZa ds fy, fyf[kr lykg@HkRlZuk ;fn dksbZ gks dk laf{kIr mYys[k%& izR;sd ekg ekfld dk;Z leh{kk dh tkdj dk;Z esa lq/kkj djus gsrq lykg nh xbZA 7. The petitioner filed his representation along-with number of documents which have been placed on record as Annexure-4. The respondents vide their letter/order dated 27th July, 2005 restored the integrity of the petitioner but so far as other adverse remarks are concerned, the same were maintained. The order dated 27th July, 2005 is reproduced as under: " jktLFkku ljdkj " dkfeZd ( dz&1@xks0iz0 ) foHkkx la[;k&,e23@vkj0lh0Vh0@dk0@d&1@xks0iz0@04 t;iqj fnukad 27-07-2005 Jh eksgu yky fot; ( 5-1-53 ) lgk;d vk;qDr&izfrdjkiaopu MwaxjiqjA }kjk%& vk;qDr] of.kT; dj foHkkx jkt0 t;iqjA fo"k;%& o"kZ 2003&04 ds ok0dk0ew0 izfrosnu esa izfrdwy izfof"V;kaA izlax%& vkidk fnukad 18-2-2005 dk vH;kosnuA mijksDr fo"k; esa funs'kky; ys[k gS fd jkT; ljdkj us vkids vH;kosnu ij izfrosnd@leh{kd vf/kdkjh ds ijke'kZ ls foopkj dj lela[;d i= fnukad 4-1-2005 }kjk vkidks lwfpr@izfrdwy izfof"V;ksa esa lR;fu"B iquZ% LFkkfir djrs gq;s vafdr izfrdwy izfof"V;ksa dks ;Fkkor j[ks tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA Sd/- mi 'kklu lfpo izfrfyfi%& 1- j{kh i=koyh 2- lEcfU/kr xksiuh; i=koyhA 3- vk;qDr okf.kT; dj lsok dks lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh dh futh i=koyh ckcrA mi 'kklu lfpo " 8. From the above, it is clear that so far as adverse remarks regarding 'integrity' of the petitioner is concerned, the same was set aside or the same was not found to be correct by the State Government and the same were ordered to be deleted and integrity of the petitioner was restored. In these circumstances, the other part of adverse remarks are concerned, the same relate to the revenue collection / target etc. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that period in dispute is from 19th July, 2003 to 31st March, 2004 and soon after closer of financial year as on 31st March, 2004, the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes wrote a letter dated 6th April, 2004 to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Udaipur, who was reporting officer of the petitioner wherein he conveyed his feelings to each and every member of the staff and congratulated on their superlative performance. The letter of Commissioner reads as under: "Deepak Upreti Commissioner, I.A.S. Commercial Taxes Department Government of Rajasthan, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 dated 06/04/2004 Dear Shri Sharma, The Commercial Taxes Department has achieved the revenue targets of sales tax set for it in respect of the BE of 2003-04. This is a commendable achievement in light of the fact that the revenue growth was below 6% in the month of August. This is a commendable achievement in light of the fact that the revenue growth was below 6% in the month of August. The overall growth thereafter has been nearly 22%. I wish to place on record the appreciation received from the Principal Secretary Finance who has termed it as 'Outstanding'. I remember, 'Late Shri Shiv Dutt Joshi' and Late Shri Uma Shankar Rana who laid down their lives for the tasks set before the department during the course of anti evasion activities. I am also aware of the difficulties of our field staff. A job which does not have challenges is no job at all. Having completed our task this year we should look for new challenges now. Please convey my feelings to each and every member of the staff and congratulations on your superlative performance. Yours sincerely, Sd/-(Deepak Upreti) Shri B.L. Sharma, Dy. Commissioner (Admn.) Commercial Taxes Department Udaipur." 9. On the basis of above letter, the Deputy Commissioner, who was reporting officer of the petitioner, wrote a DO letter to the petitioner on 13th April, 2004, the contents of which are very material for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition. Hence, the same are reproduced as under:- " ctjax yky 'kekZ] mik;qDr ( iz'kklu ) dk;kZy; mik;qDr ( iz'kklu ) okf.kfT;d dj] mn;iqj v)Z'kkldh; i=%& dzekad ih,@mik ( iz ) mn;@2004@8 fnukad 13-04-2004 fiz; Jh fot; o"kZ 2003&04 esa bl laHkkx dks vkoafVr fd;s x;s jktLo laxzg.k ds y{; izkIr dj fy;s x;s gSaA ;g vlk/kkj.k dk;Z fu"iknu vkids ,oa vkids lg;ksfx;ksa ds lkeqfgd iz;klksa o dM+h esgur dk gh ifj.kke gSA vk;qDr egksn;] okf.kfT;d dj foHkkx] jktLFkku&tiqj ls izkIr v)Z'kkldh; i= fnukad 6-4-2004 dh ifr bl i= ds lkFk layXu dj vuqjks/k gS fd d`I;k vius v/khuLFk lHkh vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dks muds mRd`"B ifj.kkeksa ds fy;s esjh vksj ls c/kkbZ nsrs gq;s ;s Hkkouk;sa laof)r djsaA eq>s vk'kk gh ugha iw.kZ fo'okl gS fd Hkfo"; esa Hkh vki blh mRlkg ls mRd`"B ifj.kke nsrs jgsaxs rFkk vius lg;ksxh dkfeZdksa dks eukscy c<+krs gq, mUgsa jpukRed usr`Ro iznku djsaxsA layXu%& mijksDrkuqlkjA 'kqHkdkeukvksa ds lkFk lnHkkoh ( ctjax yky 'kekZ ) Jh ,e0,y0 fot;] lgk;d vk;qDr okf.kfT;d dj] izfrdjkioapu] Mwaxjiqj 10. The above letter makes it very clear that reporting officer was fully satisfied with the work of the petitioner and soon after closer of financial year as on 31st March, 2004, he congratulated the petitioner and issued this appreciation certificate in the shape of letter. 11. Apart-from above, it is also relevant to mention that the petitioner annexed the comparative chart and document showing the revenue collection at his instance or in his division or by his subordinates and comparative chart showing revenue from anti evasion circle through out the state district-wise and a bare perusal of the same clearly shows that in comparison to previous / earlier years, the revenue collection in this year was much higher. The statement annexed by the petitioner along-with his representation in respect of his office at Dungarpur is reproduced as under:- lgk;d vk;qDr @ okf.kfT;d dj vf/kdkjh] izfrdjkioapu] Mwaxjij ds dk;kZy; esa fofHkUu o"kkZas esa fu/kkfjZr y{; ,oa izkfIr;ka ( yk[kksa esa ) ekg o"kZ 2001&02 o"kZ 2003&03 o"kZ 2003&04 y{; okLrfod jktLo y{; okLrfod jktLo y{; okLrfod jktLo vizSy 10-00 9-69 12-50 0-55 12-50 && ebZ 10-00 0-50 12-50 0-65 12-50 && twu 10-00 4-80 12-50 1-04 12-50 1-73 tqykbZ 10-00 9-43 12-50 1-45 12-50 1-93 vxLr 10-00 0-83 12-50 0-54 12-50 3-81 flrEcj 10-00 && 12-50 0-59 12-50 1-98 vDVwcj 10-00 0-63 12-50 6-27 12-50 9-50 uoEcj 10-00 5-50 12-50 0-58 12-50 3-45 fnlEcj 10-00 4-90 12-50 0-00 12-50 2-48 tuojh 10-00 3-01 12-50 0-52 12-50 5-41 Qjojh 10-00 1-31 12-50 0-10 12-50 5-50 ekpZ 10-00 3-02 12-50 0-16 12-50 7-03 ;ksx 120-00 44-43 150-00 12-45 150-00 42-82 12. The above statement makes it clear that in the previous year i.e. 2002-03, the total revenue collection was only for Rs. 12,45,000/-, whereas in the year 2003-04, it was increased to Rs. 42,82,000/-. Further, the adverse remarks also relates to the check-post Ratanpur and petitioner enclosed a statement of check-post Ratanpur along-with his representation and a bare perusal of it also shows that in the year 2002-03, the total revenue collection was only Rs. 23,28,000/-, whereas it was increased to Rs. 34,42,000/- in the year 2003-04. 42,82,000/-. Further, the adverse remarks also relates to the check-post Ratanpur and petitioner enclosed a statement of check-post Ratanpur along-with his representation and a bare perusal of it also shows that in the year 2002-03, the total revenue collection was only Rs. 23,28,000/-, whereas it was increased to Rs. 34,42,000/- in the year 2003-04. Similarly, the petitioner also annexed the comparative monthly revenue statement from anti evasion circle for the year 2003-04 along-with his representation in respect of each district including Dungarpur, where the petitioner was posted and a bare perusal of it makes it clear that the revenue collection in District Dungarpur was 42.70 lakhs i.e. 242.97% growth, which was the highest growth in the State of Rajasthan. The comparative monthly revenue statement in this regard is also reproduced as under:- S.No. Name of A.E. Progressive upto March 04 02-03 03-04 Growth 1 2 30 31 32 1 A.E. Ajmer 128.14 153.39 19.71 A.E. Bikaner 109.48 175.6 60.39 A.E. Jhunjhunu 42.32 48.26 14.04 A.E. Bhilwara 80.2 65.08 -18.85 A.E. Chittorgarh 21.23 7.19 -66.13 A.E. Ganganagar 111.52 113.61 1.87 A.E. Hanumangarh 23.54 21.95 -6.75 A.E. Jaipur-I 122.45 243.76 99.07 A.E. Jaipur-II 240.72 201.07 -16.47 A.E. I Kota 79.51 124.2 56.21 A.E. II Kota 122.5 57.06 -53.42 A.E. Udaipur 76.58 117.78 63.8 A.E. Dungarpur 12.45 42.7 242.97 A.E. Pali 43.05 70.21 63.24 A.E. Aburoad 14.33 25.22 68.92 A.E. Jodhpur 92.77 103.24 11.29 A.E. Alwar 122.33 141.64 15.31 A.E. Bharatpur 29.19 97.69 234.67 A.E. I 244.4 225.59 -7.7 A.E. II 239.58 157.72 -34.17 A.E. III 183.46 153.8 -16.17 Grand Total 2140.91 2346.76 9.62 13. The above statement makes it clear that revenue collection in the jurisdiction of the petitioner in the year 2003-04 was increased by 242% in comparison to previous year. All the figures discussed and reproduced above show that they were material to the present case and they all were placed by the petitioner along-with his representation, but a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondents dated 27th July, 2005 will show that not a single submission of petitioner or statistics placed by him were taken into consideration. The impugned order is neither well reasoned nor it can be said to be a speaking order. The impugned order is neither well reasoned nor it can be said to be a speaking order. If the respondents would have considered the contents of the representation of the petitioner objectively, then the adverse remarks of the reporting officer communicated to him, would have been set-aside while accepting the representation, but it appears that the respondents did not consider the same objectively and decided the representation in a cursory manner. 14. In (1) M.A. Rajasekhar Versus State of Karnataka and another { (1996) 10 SCC 369 } , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the integrity of the appellant was not doubted and his work also in all respects was found satisfactory, then 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. Para 5 of the judgment is reproduced as under: "5. It was found that his integrity was not doubted and his work also in all those respects was found to be satisfactory. Under those circumstances, 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 objectively, 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." 15. This Court in State of Rajasthan Versus R.B. Parmar & Another {RLR 1999 (1) 125} observed that if the person did not work objectively or satisfactorily, he should be given opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. He must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he ought to have acted upon. If such exercise is not done, the adverse remarks can not be said to be consistent with law. He must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he ought to have acted upon. If such exercise is not done, the adverse remarks can not be said to be consistent with law. This Court considered the various judgments of the Apex Court and held as under: "7. If the officer did not work objectively or satisfactorily he should be given opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. He must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he ought to have acted upon. If such exercise is not done the adverse remarks can not be said to be consistent with law. 8. In M.A. Rajasekhar's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that- "It is not settled law that the 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 act fairly or objectively in assessing the character integrity and performance of the incumbent." 9. In U.P. Jal Nigam's case (supra) it was held that- "As we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. All that is required by the authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advises." 10. All that is required by the authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advises." 10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam's case incorporated the view of the High Court thus- "The High Court to justify its view has given an illustration that if an employee legitimately had earned an 'outstanding' report in a particular year which, in a succeeding one and without his knowledge is reduced to the level of 'satisfactory' without any communication to him, it would certainly be adverse and affect him at one or the other state of his career." Their Lordships accepted the view of the High court and observed thus : "It may be emphasised that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can previously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitively damaging may not be true. In the instant case we have seen the service record of the first respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam, we do not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court." 11. As APARs of the respondent R.B. Parmar were downgraded from 'outstanding' to 'satisfactory' in 1991-92 and from 'outstanding' to 'good' in 1994-95 and 1995-96, he ought to have been guided by the authority concerned as to the manner in which he ought to have acted upon. In the absence of this exercise the down grading of APAR cannot be said to be consistent with law. In this view of the matter, I do not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the Tribunal." 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Another Versus Major Bahadur Singh { (2006) 1 SCC 368 } observed that the modalities provided for recording and communication of adverse entries clearly indicate as to in which cases the communication of adverse or advisory remarks are to be made. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Another Versus Major Bahadur Singh { (2006) 1 SCC 368 } observed that the modalities provided for recording and communication of adverse entries clearly indicate as to in which cases the communication of adverse or advisory remarks are to be made. The relevant instructions in that particular cases dated 3rd February, 1989 was also considered and it was observed that reading of the instructions clearly indicate that there are different stages: first is the counselling, second is the guidance and third is the consequences of the officer failing to show the desired improvement. Para 19 of the judgment is reproduced as under: "19. A reference is also necessary to the instructions issued on 3rd February, 1989. Paragraph 103 is of considerable importance and reads as follows: "103. Assessment contained in a CR will not to be communicated to the officer except in the following contingencies:- (a) When figurative assessment any where in the CR is Low or Below Average (i.e. 3 marks). In such cases extract of figurative assessment (i.e. 3 or less) will be communicated to the officer. (b) When the brief comments (pen picture) contains adverse or advisory remarks. In such cases completes pen pictures (excluding the box grading) together with comments on Guidance for Improvements will be communicated to the officer. Further, the box grading will also need communication to the officer when assessment is low or Below Average (3 or less)." The modalities provided for recording and communication of adverse entries clearly indicate as to in which cases the communication of adverse or advisory remarks are to be made. The word "Advisory" is not necessarily adverse. Great emphasis was laid on the instructions dated 21.8.1989 titled "Reflection and Communication of adverse and advisory remarks in the Confidential Reports". The same reads as follows: "The actual pen picture comprises the brief comments given at Paragraphs 13(e)/19(a) of the ACR forms for Majors to Colonels or Paragraphs 13/15 of the ACR Form for Captains and below. Therefore adverse/advisory remarks, if any, should be endorsed in these paragraphs/sub paragraphs only. The information to be given under the Column "Verbal or Written Guidance for Improvement" (i.e. Para 18(b)/19 (b) or Para 15/16) is only to support the adverse/advisory remarks reflected in the pen picture. Therefore adverse/advisory remarks, if any, should be endorsed in these paragraphs/sub paragraphs only. The information to be given under the Column "Verbal or Written Guidance for Improvement" (i.e. Para 18(b)/19 (b) or Para 15/16) is only to support the adverse/advisory remarks reflected in the pen picture. If there are no adverse/advisory remarks reflected in the pen picture, there is no requirement of including details of verbal or written guidance for improvement given to the ratees during the reporting period. It is reiterated that "Performance Counselling is a continuous process and, therefore, the ratee must be given appropriate "Guidance for improvement" as and when noticed." A reading of the instructions clearly indicate that there are different stages: first is the counseling,20 second is the guidance and third is the consequences of the officer failing to show desired improvement. Only when an officer fails to show the desired improvement the adverse/advisory remarks are included in his Confidential Report so that cognizance is taken for his weakness while planning his future placements. The High Court has clearly overlooked these aspects and on that ground alone the judgment is vulnerable. Additionally, it is noticed that the writ-petitioner had merely made a grievance of non-communication but the High Court quashed the entry for 1989- 90 which is clearly indefensible. In the fitness of things, therefore, the High Court should re-hear the matter and consider the grievances of the writ-petitioner in the background of the parameters which clearly exist. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case as the matter is being remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration." 17. The above facts referred and discussed clearly show that when the petitioner remained posted at Dungarpur, during the relevant year, the revenue collection in his jurisdiction was progressively increased by 242% in comparison to previous year. The matter relates to the year 2003-04. The year ended on 31st March, 2004 and soon thereafter the work of the petitioner was appreciated by his reporting officer, who has made the adverse remarks, vide his letter dated 13th April, 2004 as reproduced above. In fact, the contents of the letter dated 13th April, 2004 should have been mentioned in confidential report of the petitioner for the relevant year i.e. 2003-04, but for the reasons known to the reporting officer, the remarks communicated to the petitioner were mentioned. In fact, the contents of the letter dated 13th April, 2004 should have been mentioned in confidential report of the petitioner for the relevant year i.e. 2003-04, but for the reasons known to the reporting officer, the remarks communicated to the petitioner were mentioned. The reviewing authority although was satisfied so far as the integrity of the petitioner is concerned and the same was restored, but did not consider the other figures relating to revenue targets achieved in the jurisdiction of the petitioner, which have been reproduced above and which were placed on record before it along-with the representation of the petitioner and by a nonspeaking order upheld the remaining adverse remarks, which cannot be said to be proper or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondents have not placed on record any document whatsoever along-with their reply to justify the adverse remarks maintained by reviewing authority against the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is clearly established that the adverse remarks have been entered solely with the ulterior motive of adversely affecting the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Commissioner and to give the benefit to some one else. 22In view of above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The adverse remarks communicated to petitioner vide order dated 4th January, 2005 (Annexure-3) in the confidential report of the year 2003-04 as well as the order dated 27th July, 2005 (Annexure-5), both, are quashed and set-aside. However, parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******