JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against communication dated 23.4.12, informing the petitioner about the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report ('APAR') of the year 2009-10(4/09-10/09) and the communication dated 27.8.13 informing the petitioner that after consideration of his representation, it is decided to maintain the adverse remark in his APAR. It is prayed by the petitioner that the adverse remarks recorded in his APAR for the year 2009-10 as aforesaid, may be ordered to be expunged and the same may be treated to be 'very good' for the entire period 2009-10. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner entered the services of the respondents on being appointed on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest vide order dated 27.4.83. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest in the year 1995 and thereafter in the cadre of Indian Forest Services. 3. Vide communication dated 23.4.12, the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, informed the petitioner that in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2009-10 (4/2009-10/2009) there is an adverse remark and therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance, he may file representation within a period of one month. 4. The petitioner received the communication dated 23.4.12, on 13.6.12 and accordingly submitted representation within the stipulated period on 11.7.12. The representation made stands rejected and vide communication dated 27.8.13, the petitioner has been informed that the adverse remarks in his APAR for the year 2009-10 have been ordered to be maintained. Hence, this petition. 5. The adverse remarks recorded in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 2009-10 (4/2009-10/2009) as communicated vide communication dated 23.4.12 reads as under: “He is in habit of writing the letters directly to P.C.C.F. by which a R.O. Sh. Veer Singh, was suspended facts were not brought into the notice of controlling officer.” 6. The petitioner while setting out the facts forming background of adverse remarks recorded as aforesaid, has averred that in the year 2009-10, while he was posted as Soil Conservation Officer, Dantiwada Project, Abu Road, two officers namely; Shri Motilal Meena, then Chief Conservator of Forests and Director Projects, Kota, the respondent no.3 herein, and Shri M.K. Kureel, the then Chief Conservator of Forest and Director Projects, Kota, remained as his Reporting Officers, during the period from 1.4.09 to 21.10.09 and 22.10.09 to 31.3.10 respectively. During the relevant period, Mr. M.L. Daima, working as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Working Plan and Forest Settlement Rajasthan, Jaipur, was his Accepting Officer under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Instructions 2008 ('Instructions, 2008' hereinafter). 7. It is stated that in the year 2009, one Shri Veer Singh working as Range Officer Gr. I (Soil Conservation Assistant) Unit-II under the petitioner, was transferred to Range Jawahar Sagar, Wild Life, Kota on the vacant post vide order dated 27.2.09 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The respondent no.3 gave telephonic instructions to the petitioner not to comply with the order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. It is stated that after passing of the order of transfer, the Model Code of Conduct had come into effect on account of ensuing parliamentary elections and therefore, for some time Shri Veer Singh could not be relieved. However, according to the petitioner, as soon as Model Code of Conduct ceased to be operative, Shri Veer Singh was relieved on 26.5.09, which annoyed the respondent no.3, who for the reasons best known to him, did not want Shri Veer Singh to be relieved, pursuant to transfer order issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. It is stated that despite relieving order being passed, Shri Veer Singh did not handover the charge of certain articles and did not vacate the government accommodation and therefore, the petitioner issued notices to Veer Singh and copies thereof were sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. It is stated that the petitioner's action as aforesaid, added fuel to the fire and the respondent no.3 threatened the petitioner to dire consequences and to spoil his career. It is further stated that Veer Singh did not join at the new place of posting whereupon the petitioner was telephonically instructed by the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to submit a report. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted the factual report and pursuant thereto, Shri Veer Singh was placed under suspension by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and vide order dated 11.9.09 and a preliminary inquiry was ordered to be conducted against him by Deputy Conservator of Forest, Wild Life, Kota. 8. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted the factual report and pursuant thereto, Shri Veer Singh was placed under suspension by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and vide order dated 11.9.09 and a preliminary inquiry was ordered to be conducted against him by Deputy Conservator of Forest, Wild Life, Kota. 8. It is submitted that the basis for making adverse remarks against the petitioner is that he allegedly wrote letters to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, which resulted in suspension of Shri Veer Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner was duty bound to submit the report in compliance of the directions issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and thus, no illegality was committed by him. According to the petitioner, the adverse remarks reveal that the respondent no.3 was more annoyed on account of suspension of Shri Veer Singh, which leads to conclusion to that the respondent no.3 was attempting to shield Shri Veer Singh and extend undue benefit to him. 9. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks recorded in his APAR for the relevant period is an outcome of personal vengeance and malafides on the part of respondent no.3 and there is flagrant violation of Instructions, 2008, issued by the State Government governing the APAR of the Government Servant. 10. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that the petitioner was in habit of insubordination. It is submitted that the petitioner has by-passed the reporting authority and kept on reporting to the Senior Officers which resulted into suspension of the Range Officer Shri Veer Singh and this fact was not brought into the notice of Controlling Officer. It is further submitted that the Controlling Officer directed the petitioner not to relieve Ranger I Shri Veer Singh Ola in terms of transfer order until someone else joins in his place but contrary to the directions given by the Controlling Officer, the petitioner relieved Shri Veer Singh on 26.5.09 and had handed over the charge to a Forest Guard even when there was another Gazetted Officer on duty, to take undue advantage and to favour his blue eyed person. It is submitted that he mounted pressure on Shri Veer Singh to vacate Government accommodation and to transfer his Government vehicle which was not even required or demanded by any other employee in the Department. It is submitted that he mounted pressure on Shri Veer Singh to vacate Government accommodation and to transfer his Government vehicle which was not even required or demanded by any other employee in the Department. It is submitted that after considering all these aspects of the petitioner's conduct, an adverse remark was recorded in his APAR during the year 2009-10. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any material substantiating the allegation that adverse remarks were recorded with ulterior motives. The stand of the respondent is that while recording the adverse remarks and rejecting the representation, the Instructions of 2008 have not been violated. 11. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that during the entire period reported upon, the petitioner was never given any memo or warning by the respondent no.3 pointing out any deficiency in performance of the duty by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the adverse remarks could only be recorded if despite guidance given for improvement the officer reported upon does not make improvement and thus, the adverse remarks recorded without any basis are ex facie illegal. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, no written directions were given by the Controlling Officer to the petitioner not to relieve Shri Veer Singh and thus, the act of the petitioner in relieving Shri Veer Singh as soon as the Model Code of Conduct ceased to be operative, cannot be faulted with. It is submitted that there was no reason for the respondent no.3 to become annoyed with the act of the petitioner in relieving Shri Veer Singh as the petitioner has only discharged his bounden duty to comply with the order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. Learned counsel submitted that there is no material on record showing that the petitioner is in habit of writing the letters directly to P.C.C.F. and as a matter of fact, the adverse remarks are based upon one isolated incident with regard to the relieving of Shri Veer Singh in compliance of transfer order. Learned counsel submitted that there is no material on record showing that the petitioner is in habit of writing the letters directly to P.C.C.F. and as a matter of fact, the adverse remarks are based upon one isolated incident with regard to the relieving of Shri Veer Singh in compliance of transfer order. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has submitted the report pursuant to the directions of P.C.C.F., which was acted upon and Shri Veer Singh was placed under suspension and a preliminary inquiry was ordered against him under the order of P.C.C.F. Learned counsel submitted that the report submitted by the petitioner to the P.C.C.F. pursuant to his direction, in no manner, could amount to insubordination and thus, the adverse remarks recorded by the respondent no.3 at his whims and fancy, annoyed by the action of the petitioner in relieving Shri Veer Singh, is apparently malafide and therefore, deserves to be expunged. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's entire service record is unblemished and even in the year 2009-10 for the period 20.10.09 to 31.3.10, the petitioner's performance has been rated as 'very good'. Learned counsel submitted that the APAR of the petitioner of the year 2008-09, is also rated 'very good'. Learned counsel urged that the adverse remarks for the period in question have been recorded by the Reporting Officer just to spoil the career of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that as per the Clause 11 (4) of the Instructions, 2008, the Reporting Officer should not only make an objective assessment of his subordinate work and quality but should also give his subordinate all times the necessary advice, guidance and assistance to correct their faults. Learned counsel urged that the adverse remarks recorded as aforesaid are not preceded by any such advice or guidance on the part of the Reporting Officer and thus, the adverse remarks recorded are ex facie violative of the Instructions, 2008, governing the recording of the adverse remarks in the APAR of a Government servant. Learned counsel submitted that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the Reviewing Authority by merely recording its ipse dixit without objectively considering the stand taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the Reviewing Authority by merely recording its ipse dixit without objectively considering the stand taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the adverse remarks recorded being ex facie violative of the Instructions, 2008 and outcome of personal vengeance and malafides, deserve to be expunged and overall performance rating of the petitioner for the year 2009-10, deserves to be considered as 'very good' inasmuch as, for the period from 22.10.09 to 31.3.10, the petitioner's performance has been rated as 'very good' and therefore, appraisal for relevant year beneficial to the petitioner has to be accepted. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the matter of “Shri Prem Prakash Bidyasar vs. The State of Rajasthan”, (S.B.C. Writ Petition No.1634/94, decided on 8.9.95). 12. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner by-passing the Controlling Authority, directly sent letter to the P.C.C.F. which resulted in suspension of the Range Officer Shri Veer Singh, the adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer were absolutely justified. Learned counsel urged that the Instructions, 2008, issued by the State Government are for the guidance of the Reporting Officer and the technical infraction thereof would not make the adverse remarks recorded illegal. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the conduct of the petitioner in reporting to the P.C.C.F. directly is an act of indiscipline and therefore, the adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer has rightly been maintained by the Reviewing Authority. On being asked by the court is there any other incident of petitioner directly sending the letters to P.C.C.F. except the report submitted by him in respect of Shri Veer Singh to P.C.C.F., which is made basis for recording adverse remarks, learned counsel fairly submitted that there is no such material on record. On being asked by the court whether the petitioner could have ignored the transfer order of Shri Veer Singh issued by the P.C.C.F. on the basis of oral directions given by the Controlling Officer not to relieve him, learned counsel fairly conceded that the compliance of the transfer order could not have been avoided. 13. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. 13. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. A bare perusal of the adverse remarks recorded in APAR of the petitioner for the year 2009-10 (4/09- 10/09) reveals that the act of insubordination on the part of the petitioner indicated relates to the report submitted by him to P.C.C.F. directly in respect of Range Officer Shri Veer Singh which resulted in his suspension. It is the common ground between the parties that Shri Veer Singh was transferred vide transfer order dated 27.2.09 issued by P.C.C.F. but in pursuance thereof, he could not be immediately relieved on account of Model Code of Conduct having come into effect, in view of ensuing Parliamentary elections. It is not the case of the respondents that any written instructions were issued by the Controlling Officer or the P.C.C.F. to the petitioner not to comply with the transfer order. In the considered opinion of this court, in absence of any specific directions of transferring authority to keep the compliance of transfer order in abeyance, the petitioner was under an obligation to comply with the transfer order and relieve the Range Officer Shri Veer Singh, after the Model Code of Conduct ceased to be operative. As a matter of fact, without approval of the P.C.C.F., the Controlling Officer could not have issued any verbal directions to the petitioner not to comply with the transfer order and thus, the act of the petitioner in relieving Shri Veer Singh, by no stretch of imagination, could be construed to be an act of indiscipline or insubordination. 15. It is to be noticed that the facts pleaded by the petitioner regarding Shri Veer Singh not handing over the charge of the certain articles and not vacating the Government accommodation despite relieving order being passed, are also not disputed by the respondents in the reply filed. That apart, the fact that on Shri Veer Singh not joining the duty at the new place of posting, the petitioner was telephonically instructed by the P.C.C.F. to submit a report, is also not disputed by the respondents and thus, the petitioner reporting to the P.C.C.F in this regard directly in compliance of the telephonic instructions also cannot be faulted with. 16. 16. It is pertinent to note that on the basis of the report submitted by the petitioner at the instance of P.C.C.F., Shri Veer Singh was placed under suspension and a preliminary inquiry was ordered against him. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner committed any mischief and submitted false/incorrect report in compliance of the directions issued by the P.C.C.F., which was acted upon and Shri Veer Singh was wrongly placed under suspension. Suffice it to say that the suspension of Shri Veer Singh taking into consideration the act of indiscipline on his part, in no manner, suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has indulged in any act of insubordination so as to attract adverse remarks by the Reporting Officer in his APAR. 17. Though, by way of adverse remarks, the Reporting Officer has attempted to indicate that the petitioner is in habit of writing the letters directly to P.C.C.F., but, no incident except the incident discussed hereinabove wherein the petitioner has submitted the report to the P.C.C.F. directly pursuant to the directions issued by him, is brought on record, to substantiate the remark made as aforesaid. Obviously, the expression 'habit' used in the adverse remark, suggests that the petitioner has settled or regular tendency to write letters to the P.C.C.F. directly bypassing the Controlling Officer but, admittedly, there was no such material available with the Reporting Officer, which could substantiate the adverse remarks made. The absence of any such material is not even disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondents before this court and thus, the adverse remarks recorded as aforesaid in the APAR of the petitioner by the Reporting Officer on the basis of solitary incident of petitioner reporting the matter to the P.C.C.F. that too, under his directions, are apparently actuated by mala fide and therefore, deserve to be expunged. 18. It is true that the Instructions, 2008, issued by the State Government are not statutory and legally enforcible but then, the instructions issued are required to be followed and not to be ignored or flouted while evaluating the performance of a Government servant. 18. It is true that the Instructions, 2008, issued by the State Government are not statutory and legally enforcible but then, the instructions issued are required to be followed and not to be ignored or flouted while evaluating the performance of a Government servant. As indicated in the Instructions, 2008, the APAR system is introduced not only to provide information about the qualities, traits, strengths and weaknesses of the employee to the Superior Officer so as to place them at posts where their services can be utilised most fruitfully or for providing the data for judging the merit of the employees when the question relating to confirmation, promotion, selection grade, crossing of efficiency bar and continuance in service beyond a certain age or on completion of certain years of service arise but also, to apprise the employee about his defects, short comings, which could affect his career in long run. It is for this reason that the clause 11(4) casts an obligation on Reporting Officer not only to make objective assessment of his subordinate's work and qualities but also to give his subordinate at all times necessary advice, guidance and assistance to correct their fault. Further, as per clause 11(5) of the Instructions, 2008, adverse remark should be recorded in the performance appraisal only when the person reported upon fails to show improvement. 19. In the instant case, what to say about the absence of advice/guidance being given to the petitioner by the Reporting Officer before recording the adverse remarks, there is no material on record suggesting that the petitioner has persistently indulged in the act of insubordination as indicated and thus, the adverse remarks recorded in the APAR of the petitioner for the period in question, besides being actuated by mala fide, are apparently recorded in gross violation of the Instructions, 2008, issued by the State Government. 20. 20. Coming to the issue of overall rating of the performance of the petitioner during the year 2009-10, it is pertinent to note that during the period from 22.10.09 to 31.3.10, the overall performance of the petitioner has been rated as 'very good', which has been accepted by the Accepting Officer and this court has arrived at the conclusion that the adverse remarks in the APAR of the petitioner for the period 2009-10 (4/09-10/09), deserves to be expunged and therefore, as laid down by this court in Shri Prem Prakash Bidyasar's case (supra), for the year in question i.e. 2009-10, the remark beneficial to the petitioner will have to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, overall rating of the petitioner's performance during the year 2009-10 deserves to be taken as 'very good'. 21. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.8.13 (Annexure-5) issued by the Special Officer, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, is quashed. The adverse remarks recorded in Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 2009-10 (4/09-10/09) communicated vide order dated 23.4.12 is directed to be expunged. The overall rating of the performance of the petitioner during the year 2009-10 shall be treated as 'very good'. No order as to costs.