JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.2.2003 whereby appeal of the petitioner against adverse remarks in ACR for the year 1998-99 was rejected by Chairman & Managing Director of Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., the order dated 10.1.2000 whereby adverse remarks was recorded against the petitioner for the aforesaid ACR and order dated 12.5.2000 whereby his representation was rejected. 2. Shri Narpat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner are in the nature that "he has not found sincere in discharging official duty". Learned counsel submitted that before recording this kind of remarks, respondents were required to issue advisory to the petitioner in advance and warning to be careful in future so that he could improve his performance. Learned counsel submitted that remarks were recorded in mechanical manner without giving any specific particulars or material to show as for what reason the petitioner was not found sincere in discharging official duty. It was urged that Reporting Officer was required to give reasons in support of such remarks. The Government has issued instructions from time to time, which provides the procedure for recording adverse remarks and communicating the same. These instructions are binding and have legal force upon the Reporting Officer as well as the Reviewing Officer and present case is a clear example to show that in what. manner such instructions have been violated. Learned counsel argued that impugned order stinks of malice on the part of Reporting Officer because the remarks are apparently recorded in a hasty manner, without there being any sufficient data and on mere hearsay. Reporting Officer has to make objective assessment and not subjective. Learned counsel produced copy of the order dated 12.4.1999 to show that the petitioner was willfully absent from duty and inspite of the fact that his leave application was accepted, he did not attend his duty w.e.f. 14.10.1998 to 2.11.1998. It was argued that by the said order his leave was sanctioned. Learned counsel also produced the certificate issued by Zonal Magistrate dated 25.11.1998 showing that he attended the election duty from 23.11.1998 to 25.11.1998. It was submitted that allegation that he is not sincere in discharging duties were unfounded. It was argued that by the said order his leave was sanctioned. Learned counsel also produced the certificate issued by Zonal Magistrate dated 25.11.1998 showing that he attended the election duty from 23.11.1998 to 25.11.1998. It was submitted that allegation that he is not sincere in discharging duties were unfounded. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amar Kant v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 (SC) 531 in support of his case. 3. Shri Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was habitual of remaining absent. Inspite of specific communication to him on 16.11.1998, he did not turn up to attend duties. Petitioner left the office without leave, rather without grant of Headquarter permission on 10.10.1998. He thereafter turned up on duty on 4.11.1998. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.11.1998. He also misbehaved with his superiors. An investigation was made and statements of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer were recorded and report of this fact was sent to the Superintending Engineer (O&M) RSEB on 14.1.1999. It was submitted that petitioner was duly issued a show cause notice on 16.11.1998 to which he submitted reply on 28.11.1998, therefore, it cannot be said that remarks have straightway been recorded. Learned counsel submitted that much prior to issuance of show cause notice, it was apprised to the petitioner by the Controlling Authority that he could not be permitted to leave the headquarters on 10.10.1998 because there was ban on leave due to elections. Even than the petitioner absented for such a long period. Such remark by the Reporting Officer is a reflection on his actual performance. It was argued that judgment of Supreme Court in Amar Kant (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 4. I have given my anxious considerations the the arguments aforesaid and perused the material on record. 5. A perusal of adverse remarks against the petitioner would indicate that he was not found sincere in discharging the duties. Unlike in the case of adverse remarks of different nature, here is a case in which recording of remarks by Reporting Officer was preceded by a show cause notice and the reply of reportee. 5. A perusal of adverse remarks against the petitioner would indicate that he was not found sincere in discharging the duties. Unlike in the case of adverse remarks of different nature, here is a case in which recording of remarks by Reporting Officer was preceded by a show cause notice and the reply of reportee. In the face of specific refusal of grant of leave to the petitioner, which also was not made arbitrarily, but owing to ban imposed by the Government for grant of leave due to general elections. Although it may- be true that ex post facto sanction of leave for the period from 14.10.1998 to 2.11.1998 was granted to the petitioner with permission to avail prefix on 13.10.1998 and suffix on 3.11.1998, but that was sanctioned much subsequently on 12.4.1999 and was intended to regularise the period of absence of the petitioner. This further indicates that the petitioner was absent i for the aforesaid period. The election duty certificate produced by the petitioner showing that he is actually present himself for election duty from 23.11.1998 to 25.11.1998 also cannot help him. It is one thing to regularise the period by grant of leave and it is altogether different to examine correctness of observations made by Reporting Officer about performance of the petitioner. The judgment of Supreme Court on which reliance was placed was the one in which the integrity certificate was withheld and the adverse remarks were not communicated to him. Subsequently those adverse remarks were expunged by State Government and in between, consideration for his promotion fell due. Selection Committee was shown to have not considered his case owing to those adverse remarks. Such are not the facts in the present case. When this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called upon to examine the correctness of the observations recorded by the Reporting Officer in the shape of remarks about performance of the employee, it cannot substitute such observation for that of the Reporting Officer if prima facie material exists to justify remarks of Reporting Officer and to show that there was objectivity in making such remarks by Reporting Officer. 6. In the facts of the case and in view what has been discussed above, I hardly find that present case falls in the category of exceptional cases where interference of this Court would not be justified. 6. In the facts of the case and in view what has been discussed above, I hardly find that present case falls in the category of exceptional cases where interference of this Court would not be justified. 7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******