Judgment 1. The original application is filed to set aside the order of the Reporting Authority/Superintendent of Police relating to the Confidential Report of the petitioner with reference to his integrity for the period from 26.06.19998 to 31.03.1991 and other consequential orders and on abolition of the Tribunal, the O.A. stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16586 of 2007. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the said adverse remarks, he was not able to get his promotion. The petitioner has also questioned the order of Scrutinising Officer, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, dated 06.06.1999. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The appeal was rejected in RC.No.256935/Con.II(1)/2002, on 18.03.2003 by the first respondent / the Director General of Police. Thereafter, he took up the matter before the Government. The Government also rejected his representation to expunge the adverse remarks in the letter in 'D'No.740, dated 30.07.2003 in a non-speaking order. 3. A reply affidavit is filed by the Government. It is sated that the Reporting Officer/Superintendent of Police has stated in the Confidential Report of the petitioner, while he was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, in column No.8 relating to integrity as “Doubtful”. This entry in the Confidential Report as “doubtful” against the column 'integrity' is the subject matter of the writ petition. 4. The Scrutinizing Officer/Deputy Inspector General of Police simply endorsed the Confidential Report stating “I Agree”. The appeal preferred to the first respondent was rejected on the sole ground that it was a belated one. 5. I have perused the order of the appellate authority dated 18.03.2003. It is true that there is some delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the appellate authority. But the petitioner has made a specific plea in ground (a) of this application that the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.11, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.01.1984 was not followed, while recording adverse entry relating to integrity. It is true that there is some delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the appellate authority. But the petitioner has made a specific plea in ground (a) of this application that the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.11, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.01.1984 was not followed, while recording adverse entry relating to integrity. It is relevant to extract ground (a) pleaded by the petitioner in support of his prayer in the Original Application (writ petition) : “a. The respondents failed to see that whenever any reporting officer makes an observation regarding the integrity of the officer, he has to follow certain guidelines issued by the Government as eluminated in G.O.Ms.No.11, P & AR Department, dated 27.01.1984 wherein the clause no.7 reads as follows : 7. Method of reporting upon the integrity of the officer Reporting Officer have to be definite and precise in writing their remarks on the integrity of an officer. In cases, where the Reporting Officer is not in a position to make a positive report about the integrity of an officer reported on, he should have the column blank and submit a secret report stating his reasons to doubt the integrity of the Officer reported upon. The scrutinizing authorities, who receive such secret reports, should take suitable steps to find out, by means of discreet enquiries, if possible, the correctness or otherwise of the reports. Further action to be taken should also be indicated by the scrutinizing authority on the basis of his findings in the matter.” It is submitted that the procedure as mentioned in para 7 has not been followed. In arriving at the conclusion regarding integrity of an officer there should be neither discreet enquiry report nor preliminary report nor detailed enquiry with reference to any incidents touching the integrity of an officer especially in the case of the applicant. Hence the observation of the reporting officer regarding the integrity as doubtful in Column 8 has no basis and the same is liable to be quashed.” 6. There is absolutely no answer from the first respondent Government for the averment made by the petitioner, as he has categorically stated that the guidelines stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.11, P & AR Department, dated 27.01.1984 was not followed. In paragraph 17 of the reply affidavit, the first respondent refuted the aforesaid allegation. There is absolutely no answer from the first respondent Government for the averment made by the petitioner, as he has categorically stated that the guidelines stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.11, P & AR Department, dated 27.01.1984 was not followed. In paragraph 17 of the reply affidavit, the first respondent refuted the aforesaid allegation. Paragraph 17 of the reply affidavit is extracted hereunder : “17. With regard to the Ground (a) of the original application, it is submitted that the Reporting Officer arrived at a conclusion regarding integrity of the officer reported only after having assessed the officer's activities through his own sources. The applicant having kept silent all these years has not come up belatedly finding fault with the reporting officer.” 7. When the petitioner has come up with such a substantial plea that the Reporting Authority failed to follow the Government guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.11, P & AR Department, dated 27.01.1984 and the Scrutinizing Authority also did not notice the same and recorded that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful, the first respondent ought not to have seen it in a technical way, particularly, when the same was resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioner. 8. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the order of the first respondent/appellate authority and the order of the Government are liable to be interfered with and those orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to consider the remarks of the Scrutinizing Officer along with the Confidential Report of the Reporting Authority of the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the period from 26.06.1988 to 31.03.1999 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.11, P & AR Department, dated 27.01.1984, and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.