Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Chandresh Kumar challenging the letter dated 04.04.2006 by which he was communicated the adverse remarks and subsequent letter dated 26.09.2006, by which the representation submitted by him against the letter dated 04.04.2006, conveying him adverse remarks in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report, was rejected. Petitioner was at the relevant point of time working on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police at Jaitaran in September, 2004. The reviewing officer i.e. the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, vide communication dated 04.04.2006 conveyed to him following adverse remarks:- “He could not handle difficult law and problems and investigation of complicated cases promptly and in proper direction.” 2. Petitioner submitted representation there-against to the Government, which is on record as Annexure-2. 3. Background in which aforesaid adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner are that the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, District Pali, on 05.04.2005 (Annexure-3) stating therein that law and order situation in Jaitaran Circle of District Pali (of which the petitioner was Circle Officer) was quite disturbing. One woman was murdered in broad day light in village Agewa and accused could not be traced for quite some time. The members of the Gurjar community had agitated over this issue. Despite instructions, the Circular Officer has not taken steps to ensure effective investigation and even did not interrogate the known criminals of the area. It was directed that explanation of concerning Circle Officer and S.H.O., should be called for and a special team should be constituted to solve the case. 4. Another incident that was mentioned therein was that of village Sumel, Police Station Sendra, where one woman named Basanti was proposed to become ‘sati’, (a forbidden ritual where a woman burns herself alive on pyre of her deceased husband). This was taken place on 20.03.2005. Even though information was received at the Police Station on 19.03.2005 at 2.30-3.00 pm about the said incident of proposed ‘sati’. This was taken place on 20.03.2005. Even though information was received at the Police Station on 19.03.2005 at 2.30-3.00 pm about the said incident of proposed ‘sati’. It was a lapse on the part of the concerning police official as to why the information with regard thereto did not reach the police earlier, despite the fact that large crowd of 25 to 30 thousand people assembled there and as per the information subsequently received, the announcement with regard to this incident was made by loud speaker fitting in jeep in adjoining areas and printed pamphlets were also distributed. The Superintendent of Police was asked to call for explanation of concerned Circle Officer i.e. the petitioner, the S.H.O., and the Incharge of the Police outpost as to why advance information was not collected thereabout. It was further stated that this was a serious case of dereliction of duty and therefore explanation of the officers should be sent. 5. Yet another incident, of which reference was given, was that of disturbances caused in the factory premise of Ambuja Cement by one person. It was stated that this person on different occasions used to collect group of persons outside the factory gate. Despite written complaints by the management of the said factory to the Circle Officer, he failed to take any appropriate action, with the result the law and order situation in the area worsened. Similarly, disturbance was caused by the said person along-with group of people on 30.03.2005. Despite direction to the Circle Officer, nothing has been done. The Circle Officer and the S.H.O. were responsible for such lapse in performance of their duty. It was asked that their explanation be obtained and submitted. 6. In conclusion, the Inspector General of Police conveyed to the Superintendent of Police that the law and order situation in Jaitaran circle during last three months had worsened. The circle officer does not seem to have any control over the S.H.O. and the police officials. He has failed to improve the situation despite oral warnings. The Superintendent of Police was advised to keep a strict vigil and control over the situation and he was also asked to give written warning to the Circle Officer, or else any serious untoward incident might take place in the area. He was also advised to give written warning to the Circle Officer to improve his working. The Superintendent of Police was advised to keep a strict vigil and control over the situation and he was also asked to give written warning to the Circle Officer, or else any serious untoward incident might take place in the area. He was also advised to give written warning to the Circle Officer to improve his working. It is in this background, afore-quoted adverse remarks were given to the petitioner. 7. Shri Mahendra Shah, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that aforesaid adverse remarks in Annual Performance Appraisal Report (for short, ‘the APAR’) for the year 2004-05 have been recorded by the reviewing authority in breach of the provisions of Clause 14(ii) and 14(iii) of the Instructions issued by the Department of Personnel, which requires that before any adverse remark to be recorded in the APAR, an employee has to be necessarily given advice or memo of instructions in advance so that he may get opportunity to improve his performance and if he does not improve his work, then only adverse remarks should be recorded in his APAR. The petitioner was never advised to improve his working. In fact, there was no such occasion for the reviewing authority to give any such instructions because the petitioner has always been handling the law and order situation promptly. In any case, aforesaid letter dated 05.04.2005 was served on 21.04.2005 i.e. after expiry of the year 2004. The reference to the murder of a woman belonging to Gurjar community, is misconceived because that murder case was being investigated into by some other officer and not by the petitioner. Yet he put a supervision note dated 11.03.2005 and issued necessary direction to the Investigating Officer. The dispute relates to the owner of cement factory and the khatedar of the land and that could not be a reason for recording adverse remarks in the APAR of the petitioner because an injunction order was passed in favour of the khatedar and this was essentially a civil dispute. It was denied that the petitioner was responsible for not taking any action in the matter of ‘sati’. In fact the place where the incident of ‘sati’ was to take place, was 80 kilometers away from Jaitaran, which was neither connected with wireless nor with mobile. The Incharge of the Police Station, in whose area that place fell, also did not give any information to the petitioner. In fact the place where the incident of ‘sati’ was to take place, was 80 kilometers away from Jaitaran, which was neither connected with wireless nor with mobile. The Incharge of the Police Station, in whose area that place fell, also did not give any information to the petitioner. Moreover, when the first information report in regard to the incident was received by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Pali, who thereupon conveyed the same to the petitioner, petitioner immediately visited the place and arrested the member of the family concerned, and no event of ‘sati’ took place. It was not a lapse on the part of the petitioner. The Inspector General of Police had also some role to play in the matter of 'sati', because in the intervening night of 18th and 19th of March, 2005, he too was there in the same area. It was denied that law and order situation went out of control in the area and control of the petitioner worsened. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was awarded appreciation certificate with regard to his working by his superior officer Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sharma vide letter dated 11.02.2005 (Annexure-4) for peaceful conduct of the Panchayat Election, 2005. Learned counsel has also invited attention of the court towards the explanation dated 01.04.2005 sent by him to the Inspector General of Police through the Superintendent of Police, Pali regarding the incident of murder of woman belonging to Gurjar community and the instruction given by him to Shri Amara Ram, the Inspector of Police, Police Station Jaitaran, on 04.04.2005. The petitioner also submitted his explanation regarding the incident of ‘sati’ to the Superintendent of Police, Pali, by letter dated 21.04.2005. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner also referred to the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Pali, regarding the incident of ‘sati’ vide letter dated 21.04.2005 and also another letter dated 21.02.2005 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, vide which he submitted his explanation regarding murder of a woman and disturbance in Ambuja cement factory premises. Reference is also made to the letter of explanation dated 21.04.2005 with regard to the laxity in the investigation of murder case of a woman in village Agewa. It is argued that contents of these explanation letters clearly show that there was no laxity or negligence on the part of the petitioner as Circle Officer. Reference is also made to the letter of explanation dated 21.04.2005 with regard to the laxity in the investigation of murder case of a woman in village Agewa. It is argued that contents of these explanation letters clearly show that there was no laxity or negligence on the part of the petitioner as Circle Officer. He has wrongly been given adverse remarks. 10. It is argued that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the reviewing authority on 31.03.2005 but he has rejected the representation by a non-speaking order without considering any of the arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Awani Kumar Upadhyay vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others – 2013 (2) Supreme 412 , Sukhdeo vs. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Another – (1996) 5 SCC 103 , State of Gujarat and Another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah – (1999) 1 SCC 529 , Union of India and Others vs. E.G. Nambudiri – (1991) 3 SCC 38 , Ram Chander vs. Union of India and Others – (1986) 3 SCC 103 and R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India and Others – (1986) 2 SCC 651 . 11. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 12. On the other hand, Shri B.S. Rajawat, learned Deputy Government Counsel for respondents State, submitted that the petitioner was issued advisories as also the warnings quite number of times which is evident not only by letter of the reviewing authority i.e. the Inspector General of Police but also those of the recording officer, which is proved from number of separately letters vide which he submitted his explanation with regard to various incidents referred to in letter of the Inspector General of Police dated 05.04.2005. The learned Deputy Government Counsel denied that the reporting officer or the reviewing authority has not followed the provisions of Clause 14(ii) or 14(iii) of the Instructions while recording the adverse remarks against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police has called for comments of the petitioner and that the petitioner has replied thereto. Copy of the aforesaid letter dated 05.04.2005 was also intimated to the petitioner, which is evident from the perusal of the said letter at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner was given number of chances to improve his work performance. The Superintendent of Police has called for comments of the petitioner and that the petitioner has replied thereto. Copy of the aforesaid letter dated 05.04.2005 was also intimated to the petitioner, which is evident from the perusal of the said letter at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner was given number of chances to improve his work performance. He was given written warnings. The law and order situation of Jaitaran Circle immensely worsened during the period the petitioner happened to remain posted there as Circle Officer. The recording of adverse remarks by the reviewing authority cannot be unfounded or without any basis. 13. It was argued that information with regard to the incident of ‘sati’ on 20.03.2005 in village Sumel, Police Station Sandra reached the Police Station early when the police reached the place of incident. Already around 25 to 30 thousand people have gathered to glimpse the incident. The propaganda was made in the area by loud speaker and pamphlets and it was quite surprising that the petitioner being the Circle Officer remained completely unaware. That information did not reach the police only, even when everyone in the area had come to know about the proposed incident of ‘sati’ and it was a serious lapse. It is proved that the police especially the Circle Officer was negligent in discharge of his duties. Regarding the case of murder of a woman of Gurjar community also, the petitioner did not take any step to ensure effective investigation and book the culprit. Regarding the incident in the premise of Ambuja cement factory, the police failed to maintain the law and order situation despite written and oral complaints in the regard by the factory management and such incident repeatedly happened there. There was definite trend during the period of last three months of the year 2004-05 and therefore the reviewing authority was fully justified in recording the impugned adverse remarks. 14. Learned Deputy Government Counsel, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Others – (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Rajeev Bhatnagar vs. Union of India and others – W.P. © 5913/2011, decided on 23.10.2013. 15. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 16. 15. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 16. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar pertains to the adverse remarks recorded against a judicial officer on the basis of severe structures passed against him by the Allahabad High Court in its judgment while deciding Civil Second Appeal. When he filed the application in the High Court for expunction of the remarks, the High Court dismissed the application, though with the observations that it did not intend to make any suggestion for initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the officer. In those facts, the Supreme Court held that no reasonings were given for recording the remarks which were neither justified nor called for, and if not expunged they are likely to affect the career of the appellant and the remarks were ordered to be expunged. That judgment is hardly of any help to the petitioner. 17. Reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukhdeo, supra, is wholly misconceived as the said judgment pertains to compulsory retirement, though incidentally, the adverse remarks were also called in question. In that context, it was observed by their lordships that the controlling officer must bestow careful attention to collect all correct and truthful information and give necessary particulars when he seeks to make adverse remarks against the subordinate officer whose career prospect and service were in jeopardy. It would be salutory that the controlling officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior sufficient opportunity in writing by informing him of the deficiency he noticed for improvement. 18. In the present case, enough material has been placed on record not only by the petitioner himself to justify the adverse remarks recorded in his APAR, but the respondents have also placed on record reasons justifying their action in recording adverse remarks against the petitioner. 19. Yet another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner is Surya Kant, supra, which also arose out of a case of compulsory retirement. It was held in that case that purpose of adverse remarks is to give a warning to a government servant to improve his work performance. 19. Yet another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner is Surya Kant, supra, which also arose out of a case of compulsory retirement. It was held in that case that purpose of adverse remarks is to give a warning to a government servant to improve his work performance. Adverse entries are required to be communicated to the concerned government servant so that the government servant may have sufficient opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that adverse entries are wholly uncalled for or to slightly prove the matter and on being convenience that his previous conduct justified such entries, such entry to improve his performance. 20. In the present case, as already noticed above, the adverse entries were preceded by number of communications and explanations submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police thereabout and such adverse entries have been recorded subsequent thereto. 21. In Union of India and Others vs. E.G. Nambudiri, Ram Chandra vs. Union of India and R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India, supra, this court quashed the order rejecting the representation, same being not reasoned. In the present case, the competent authority has conveyed that it decided to reject the representation after having consultation with the reporting officer as well as reviewing officer and has not found any good reason to remove the adverse remarks. The kind of adverse remarks that have been recorded against the petitioner are that he could not handle difficult law and order problems and investigation of complicated cases and could not ensure prompt investigation to complete the investigation in proper direction. In the present case, the respondents have sufficiently documented the reasons for recording such adverse remarks against the petitioner. In fact, most of the documents have been placed on record by the respondents, which justify recording of aforesaid adverse remarks against the petitioners. If we read those aforesaid adverse remarks in the light of material placed on record, the rejection order cannot be interfered with only because it has not dealt with the arguments in greater details. In fact the petitioner in his own representation has stated that he went to the place where the incident of ‘sati’ was about to take place on 20.03.2005 on receiving the communication from the Additional Superintendent of Police on 19th. In fact the petitioner in his own representation has stated that he went to the place where the incident of ‘sati’ was about to take place on 20.03.2005 on receiving the communication from the Additional Superintendent of Police on 19th. That means that he himself was unaware about the heinous crime of ‘sati’ that was going to take place in his circle on 20.03.2005 and his ignorance persisted even when large gathering of 25 to 30 thousand of people assembled around the village which could be possible only by use of loud speaker and distribution of pamphlets to give wide publicity of that incident of ‘sati’. Everyone else in his circle became aware of the incident of ‘sati’ going to take place on 20.03.2005 and only the petitioner remained oblivious about this development, though he happened to be the Circle Officer. 22. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.