Judgment : The petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in effecting pre-maturely retirement from service w.e.f. 01.04.2012 vide office order/show cause notice dated 31.08.2011, without considering his representations dated 27.03.2012 and 01.04.2012 for acceptance of voluntary retirement, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the third respondent to accept his voluntary retirement as per the rules in force/as per 6th Pay Commission Recommendation on completion of 20 years of service. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the respondents having considered the past five years service record and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that in the interest of the public, the petitioner should be prematurely retired from service w.e.f. 01.04.2012, and the said orders have already come into force. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have neither furnished the copies of said ACRS nor afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. He further submitted that the petitioner has made representations seeking voluntary retirement to the third respondent and the same are pending and in the meanwhile, the respondents have issued the impugned show cause notice. 4. The settled legal principle is that no one should be condemned unheard. The respondents have to act fairly, justly and reasonably. The superior officers must observe the character, conduct, behaviour and performance of their subordinates and they should write ACRs of their subordinates, but whenever adverse remarks have been noted in the ACRs, it appears that the said ACRS should be furnished to the concerned employee/officer to submit an explanation with regard to those adverse remarks passed against him by his superior officers. In all fairness, any adverse remarks must be supported by reasons that means there must be some material to make adverse remarks against an employee. If there is no material, the probability of making adverse remarks at the whims and fancies of the superior officers cannot be ruled out. The service career of an employee or an officer should and must not depend upon the whims and fancies of the superior officers. If for any reason the superior officer does not like his subordinate, he might simply make adverse remarks in the ACRs, which may spoil the future career and reputation of such an employee. The service career of an employee or an officer should and must not depend upon the whims and fancies of the superior officers. If for any reason the superior officer does not like his subordinate, he might simply make adverse remarks in the ACRs, which may spoil the future career and reputation of such an employee. Therefore, it appears that the Courts must see that justice is done to the parties and no injustice is done to anybody. 5. In the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings stand suspended, and the third respondent may consider the representations dated 27.03.2012 and 01.04.2012 filed by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement. If the respondents want to initiate disciplinary proceedings and prematurely retire the petitioner from service, they must furnish the adverse remarks noted against him in the ACRs and give him a reasonable opportunity to defend his case and pass reasoned order taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.