JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by Brijraj Singh Rathore challenging downgrading of assessment in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the year 2011-12, praying for quashment of communication dated 23.06.2014 read with letter dated 13.06.2014, whereby his representation there against was rejected. It is further prayed that the respondents commanded to omit the aforementioned adverse remarks from consideration of his case for promotion. 2. Petitioner, at the time of filing of writ petition, was posted as Commandant Home Guard Training Centre, Jaipur. He at that time was eligible and fell in the zone of consideration for promotion on the post of Deputy Commandant General Home Guards cum Deputy Director General Civil Defense (for short, ‘the DCG’) as he was the senior most Commandant in the Home Guard and Civil Defense. In order to get assured, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent under the Right to Information Act to know whether his performance has been correctly assessed or not in the APAR of the relevant year by the assessing authority. The respondent department supplied him Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (for short, ‘the APARs’) for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. It is from this that he learnt that his performance has been wrote as ‘below average’ during the year 2011-12 by the reporting officer and ‘unsatisfactory’ by the reviewing officer, which has been approved by the accepting officer in respect of the manner the remarks made by the reporting officer that he has been supporting the unreasonable demands and undisciplined correspondence by undisciplined staff. Coming to know about the aforesaid remarks, the petitioner submitted representation dated 24.04.2013 to the Government in its Department of Personnel. 3. Mr. Abhishek Pareek, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that the petitioner was posted as senior most officer at Headquarters in the year 2011 and was liable to answer directly to the Director General. Owing to this reason, the respondent no.3 Mr. V.K. Uppal did not like the efficient working of the petitioner in the department as he was earlier posted as senior staff officer at the Headquarters. This was because earlier when the petitioner was not posted as senior staff officer at Headquarters, he was directly accountable to respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 Mr. Owing to this reason, the respondent no.3 Mr. V.K. Uppal did not like the efficient working of the petitioner in the department as he was earlier posted as senior staff officer at the Headquarters. This was because earlier when the petitioner was not posted as senior staff officer at Headquarters, he was directly accountable to respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 Mr. V.K. Uppal was on the verge of retirement and wanted to get few illegal works done through the petitioner but the petitioner never compromised with the work ethics and refused to toe to his lines and therefore the respondent no.3 developed animosity with the petitioner. In order to satisfy his vendetta against the petitioner, the respondent no.3 coloured his APAR of the year 2011-12. This was the last time that he acted as reporting officer of the petitioner as he retired in the subsequent year. It is submitted that the respondent no.3 earlier always rated the performance of the petitioner up to the mark, which would be evident from the fact that he rated the performance of the petitioner as ‘outstanding’ in the year 2010-11. Even in the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the respondent no.3 was the reporting officer of the petitioner and in those years also he rated him ‘very good’ and ‘outstanding’, respectively. There is therefore no justification why suddenly in the third year he would assess performance of the petitioner ‘below average’. Petitioner has been a very efficient officer and he was even awarded President Medal on 15.08.2011. In fact, own integrity of the respondent no.3 – the reporting officer, was under question as the erstwhile DGP had issued circular instructing his subordinate officers to surpass the respondent no.3 and forward all the files directly to DGP. Copy of the circular dated 15.09.2008 has been placed on record as Annexure-2. Referring to the adverse remarks in column 2 of the APAR, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the kind of derogatory and disrespectful language used in the note-sheet by the respondent no.3 only reflects the extent of hatred and bias he nurtured against the petitioner. This is evident from the fact that in the adverse remarks, he used the word ‘schizophrenic’ against the petitioner, which clearly show that he bears a personal animosity towards the petitioner and was bent upon spoiling his career. This is evident from the fact that in the adverse remarks, he used the word ‘schizophrenic’ against the petitioner, which clearly show that he bears a personal animosity towards the petitioner and was bent upon spoiling his career. The respondent no.3 downgraded the APAR of the petitioner without recording any plausible and acceptable reason. Not only the performance of the petitioner has been downgraded in the previous year, but such downgrading has been done without any communication or opportunity of being heard. No reasons were forthcoming as to why the reporting officer, who, in the very preceding year, rated his performance as ‘outstanding’, would now assess him as ‘below average’. This was done purposely to deprive the petitioner of his promotion. The petitioner was on the verge of getting promotion but on account of downgrading the performance, he has been deprived of the promotion. The petitioner was never cautioned by the reviewing officer or the assessing officer in respect of any shortcomings nor was issued any advisory. The reviewing officer and accepting officer, without application of mind, upheld the adverse remarks made by the reporting officer. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act with communication dated 23.06.2014 clearly shows that there was no application of mind by the reviewing authority, which has, without perusing the contents of the representation of the petitioner, only on the basis of comments of the reporting officer, made the same. Para 64 of the note-sheet, wherein it has been stated that the reporting officer has recommended not to change the minds clearly established that the respondent no.3 developed animosity towards the petitioner to such an extent that he would deny information, which the petitioner sought under the Right to Information Act, when he was working as Public Information Officer. This would be evident from the communication dated 17.09.2012 (Annexure-7). Petitioner submitted another reminder to his representation, vide letter dated 02.05.2014. Respondents, however, rejected this representation as well vide letter dated 23.06.2014. Learned counsel argued that the copy of the note-sheet dated 19.03.2014 obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act and produced on the record as Annexure-6, clearly shows that the Committee constituted for consideration of representation took cognizance only on the point of integrity and did not examine the adverse remarks, which reflects non application of mind on their part. It is therefore that while integrity certificate has been released, remaining adverse remarks have been kept intact. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.A. Rajasekhar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another – (1996) 10 SCC 369 , State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and Another – (1997) 4 SCC 7 , S.T. Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka and Another – (2007) 9 SCC 436 , Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Others – (2008) 8 SCC 725 , Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others – AIR 2013 SC 2741 , Daljit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Others – (2015) 9 SCC 680 , Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Others – (2009) 16 SCC 146 , Union of India Vs. E.G. Nambudiri – (1991) 3 SCC 38 , Pawan N. Chandra Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Another – (2009) 17 SCC 770 , U.P. Jal Nigam and Others Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Others – (1996) 2 SCC 363 , State Bank of India and Others Vs. Kashinath Kher and Others – (1996) 8 SCC 762 , and that of this court in Shankarlal Soni Vs. Stae of Rajasthan and Others – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20234/2013, decided vide order dated 03.11.2015, Ashok Iyer Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7551/2009, decided vide order dated 10.11.2009, Rajendra Kishan Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4445/1998, decided vide judgment dated 20.01.2017 and Dust Daman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.638/2007, decided vide order dated 17.02.2016. 6. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the allegations of mala-fides and bias have been made by the petitioner not only against the reporting officer but also against reviewing officer and accepting officer, who have not been made party respondents to the writ petition. The writ petition therefore suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. The reporting officer in making the adverse remarks against the petitioner in his APAR of the year 2011-12 had sufficient material to justify such remarks as timely warnings were giving to the petitioner and shortcomings in his working were pointed out. Petitioner, however, failed to improve his work and behaviour. The writ petition therefore suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. The reporting officer in making the adverse remarks against the petitioner in his APAR of the year 2011-12 had sufficient material to justify such remarks as timely warnings were giving to the petitioner and shortcomings in his working were pointed out. Petitioner, however, failed to improve his work and behaviour. Photocopies of letters dated 05.03.2012, 06.03.2012, 13.03.2012, 14.03.2012 and reply submitted by the petitioner dated 12.03.2012 have been collectively placed on record as Annexure R-1. The petitioner has suppressed all these letters in the writ petition. Petitioner has wrongly described himself as senior most commandant, whereas his rank in the seniority is third. 7. It is argued that the adverse remarks made by the reporting officer in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 2011-12 were based on objective assessment of his performance during relevant period. Petitioner was directly answerable to the Director General only as senior staff officer posted at the Headquarters. The petitioner was accountable to the Deputy Commandant General, who was also his reporting officer. It is denied that the respondent no.3 was revengeful towards the petitioner. It is also denied that the Circular dated 15.09.2008 was issued by the Director General to surpass the respondent no.3. Purpose of this circular was to speed up the work and avoid undue delay in processing the files. It is submitted that the representation of the petitioner was subjected to close scrutiny and objective consideration. The petitioner failed to produce any proof in support of his allegation against such adverse remarks. Comments of the reporting officer were obtained. The competent authority, after considering the remarks of the reporting officer, expunged the remarks relating to his integrity but has not found any convincing ground to expunge other remarks. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened, which has not found the petitioner suitable for promotion on the post of Deputy Commandant General due to the adverse remarks in his APAR of the year 2011-12. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. S.P. Nayyar – (2014) 14 SCC 370 and Ramrao and Others Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Others – (2004) 2 SCC 76 . 8. Learned Additional Advocate General, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. S.P. Nayyar – (2014) 14 SCC 370 and Ramrao and Others Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Others – (2004) 2 SCC 76 . He, relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. S.P. Nayyar, supra, argued that merely because the reporting officer has assessed the APAR of the petitioner as ‘below average’ as against assessment of ‘outstanding’/’very-good’ in the preceding years, does not mean that he was biased. 9. Mr. Abhishek Pareek, learned counsel for petitioner, rejoined and submitted that several letters, collectively produced on record as Annexure R-1, are alleged advisories to the petitioners, all of which were written by the respondent no.3 only. All these letters were prepared in a span of one week only with a view to spoil the career of the petitioner and justify the adverse remarks recorded against him. The very fact that the petitioner was awarded President Medal in the year 2011 speaks high about his performance as criteria for shortlisting for President Medal is that a candidate should have had since past seven outstanding/very good APARs to his credit. In the very next year i.e. 2012-13 and next two consecutive years i.e. 2013-14 and 2014-15, performance of the petitioner has again been rated as outstanding, the fact that for intervening year 2011-12 his performance was wrongly rated as ‘below average’ only because of mala-fide and bias on the part of the respondent no.3. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions, perused the material on record and also studied the cited case law. 11. The record, as reflected from the unrebutted pleadings of the memo of writ petition, reply and rejoinder, would bear it out that performance of the petitioner in the APAR of the year 2009-10 was rated as ‘very good’ and of the year 2010-11 it was rated as ‘outstanding’, and thereafter again of the year 2012-13 as ‘outstanding’ and of the year 2013-14 as ‘outstanding’. The assertion of the petitioner in the memo of writ petition as also in rejoinder that the petitioner has meritorious service record to his credit and there has not been any disciplinary proceedings initiated against him during long tenure of last 21 years and that due to his excellent services, he was awarded President Medal for outstanding service on 15.08.2011. His assertion in the rejoinder that for such an award, an officer must have seven consecutive outstanding/very good APARs to his credit, has also not been refuted. Why and how suddenly an officer, who had always been rated as ‘outstanding/very good’ in the APARs, would be rated ‘below average’ in the very next year, has not been satisfactorily demonstrated and justified by the respondents on record except producing detailed and verbose adverse remarks recorded by the reporting officer. The kind of adverse remarks, which the reporting officer has recorded in the case of the petitioner are unusual to be seen in the APARs. The reporting officer felt rather strongly against the petitioner, which would be reflected from the notes of the reporting officer about the petitioner that he is found to be very arrogant, argumentative and unreasonable. The reporting officer has even gone to the extent of writing that he is of schizophrenic mood, which is obstacle in the smooth official day to day functioning, and that he used derogatory and disrespectful language on official note-sheets and even letters while corresponding with his seniors. The reporting officer also wrote that he has been advised numerous times and also warned to improve and mend his ways but he has turned a deaf ear towards every advise. One would wounder if the petitioner was such an indisciplined and inefficient officer, why would the very same reporting officer (respondent no.3) would rate him ‘outstanding’ and ‘very good’ in previous two years and the new officer, who replaced him after his retirement, would also rate him ‘outstanding’ in consecutive two years. The fact that he was advised to improve his performance and also mend his ways has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Had the petitioner been such an indisciplined officer with the remark of insubordination, why was he not issued any memo calling for his explanation and why disciplinary proceedings either of minor or major penalty, were not initiated against him. 12. The respondents in their reply have not brought any such fact. Had the petitioner been such an indisciplined officer with the remark of insubordination, why was he not issued any memo calling for his explanation and why disciplinary proceedings either of minor or major penalty, were not initiated against him. 12. The respondents in their reply have not brought any such fact. Even the record sent to the departmental promotion committee, copies whereof have been placed on record, indicates in the column relating to charge-sheet/details of charges, as ‘nil’. The respondents have placed on record only seven letters collectively as Annexure-R/1, addressed to the petitioner, which have been sent by none other than the respondent no.3 only between 05.12.2012 and 14.03.2012 in a short span of ten days. In fact, two letters were addressed to the petitioner by respondent no.3 on 05.03.2012 and thereafter two letters were addressed by him to the petitioner on 06.03.2012, then one each on 12.03.2012 and 13.03.2012 and 14.03.2012, advising the petitioner to improve his work performance and refrain from using intemperate language in the official notes/files and follow the command of superiors. The letter dated 05.03.2012 stats that when the complaint was sent to the petitioner with regard to recruitment of home guards by the District Collector, Dholpur, for his comments, he rather than making comments, gave certain suggestions, which only delayed the matter. Letter dated 05.03.2012 was to the effect that when two files pertaining to Mr. Babulal and Mr. Dhanraj, were sent to the petitioner for providing information under Right to Information Act as Assistant Public Information Officer, he wanted certain clarification with regard to his jurisdiction. He was advised to avoid making unnecessary comments and transact the office work properly. Third letter dated 06.03.2012 is to the effect that when file was sent to the petitioner for preparing entry-pass of the officers for Legislative Assembly with the approval of the respondent no.3 by indicting as ‘proposed’ on the note-sheet, why the petitioner again in the head-note no.24 asked for specific orders, which reflected that he only wants to delay the matters. Yet another letter dated 06.03.2012 stated that despite specific direction by the respondent no.3 on the file pertaining to the directions received from the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi with regard to de-induction, the petitioner instead of making compliance, suggested to the respondent no.3 on the note-sheet that he (respondent no.3) should take up the matters with the B.S.F., which reflects that he was avoiding to comply with the orders of the superiors and that amounted to insubordinate. 13. Furthermore, letter dated 12.03.2012 is in fact a letter in continuation of earlier letter dated 05.03.2012, where the petitioner wanted certain clarification with regard to his jurisdiction as Assistant Public Information Officer. The letter dated 13.03.2012 is merely required the petitioner to improve his work style and use of language in the official note-sheets and the official correspondences. The letter dated 14.03.2012 advised the petitioner to refrain himself from using intemperate language in the correspondences. Even if all these letters are cumulatively taken as justification of what the reporting officer intended to convey by writing so scathing adverse remarks against the petitioner, yet these letters would not justify the tenor and intensity of all the remarks about their severeness, where he described the petitioner as highly indisciplined officer, who is very arrogant, averse to following the others/directions of his Senior Officers and even H.O.D., and that he is very argumentative and very unreasonable, most of the times, and that his schizophrenic swings of mood are an obstacle in the smooth official day to day functioning. Not only this, the reporting has gone to the extent of writing that the petitioner tries to use blackmailing/arm twisting methods by asking official information under Right to Information Act even on the issues which are well known to him and is in habit of questioning the acts of his seniors even H.O.D., in so many matters and further that he uses derogatory and disrespectful language on official note sheets and even letters while corresponding with his seniors. In fact, sub para of fourth para of the adverse remarks states that he has been supporting the unreasonable demands and indisciplined correspondence by undisciplined staff, has not even been approved by the reviewing officer as in his view it required more specific evidence. 14. In fact, sub para of fourth para of the adverse remarks states that he has been supporting the unreasonable demands and indisciplined correspondence by undisciplined staff, has not even been approved by the reviewing officer as in his view it required more specific evidence. 14. Coming back to the relevant year, it should be noted that while the reporting officer assessed the integrity of the petitioner as ‘below average’, the reviewing officer has rated him as satisfactory only, although it does not appear to be making much of difference because relevant column of Part III of APAR Proforma indicates his rating as unsatisfactory and not ‘below average’ and therefore both can be rated as equivalent. The accepting authority has not at all applied its mind to the kind of scathing remarks. The reporting officer has made and the reviewing officer has approved and accepted them as it is. The note-sheet of the relevant file in which matter was dealt with indicate that when the comments of the reporting officer were asked for, he was advised against expunging the adverse remarks and the reviewing officer stated that he made comments on the basis of what was conveyed to him by the reporting officer in telephonic conversation. However, regarding justification of the adverse remarks, his views were that the same would be available only with the reporting officer. Since the integrity certificate of the petitioner was withheld, the matter was placed before the high level committee with regard to remarks regarding doubtful integrity recorded in his APAR. Even on the detailed representation submitted by the petitioner against adverse remarks raising all the issues point wise, the committee in its meeting dated 18.03.2014, headed by four officers, namely, (1) the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Homeguard & Civil Defence Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (2) the Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (3) the Director General of Homeguard & Civil Defence, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and (4) the Joint Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Jaipur, made following report:- “The Committee looked into the APAR of Shri Brij Raj Singh Rathore, Sr. Staff Officer, Homeguard & Civil Defence for the year 2011-12. It was found that the following adverse remarks were recorded by the Reporting Officer in the column of Integrity:- An highly indisciplined officer. As per the sheet attached. The remarks were conveyed to Shri Brij Raj Singh Rathore, Sr. Staff Officer, Homeguard & Civil Defence for the year 2011-12. It was found that the following adverse remarks were recorded by the Reporting Officer in the column of Integrity:- An highly indisciplined officer. As per the sheet attached. The remarks were conveyed to Shri Brij Raj Singh Rathore, Sr. Staff Officer, Homeguard & Civil Defence who in his representation has requested to expunge the adverse remarks. The comments of the Reporting Officer are also enclosed. After examining the available relevant record the Committee decided that the remarks do not have any bearing on the integrity of the officer. Therefore, integrity certificate may be restored.” 15. The object of making entries in the APARs has been commented upon time and again by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. 16. The Supreme Court in M.A. Rajasekhar, supra, has held that it is now settled law that the object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence of an officer on merits and performance of an officer concerned so as to grade him in various categories as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory and average, etc. The competent authority and the reviewing authority have to act fairly or objectively in assessing the character, integrity and performance of the incumbent. 17. In M.A. Rajasekhar, supra, the Supreme Court underlined the need to write confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner either commenting/downgrading the conduct, character efficiency or integrity of the officer in that behalf. In para 7 of the report, the Supreme Court held that the officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports, has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer. It should be founded upon facts or circumstances. Though sometimes, it may not be part of the record, but the conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within his knowledge. Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidentials should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidentials should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him to have it corrected by appropriate representation to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty, integrity, good conduct and efficiency get improved in the performance of public duties and standard of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes a successful tool to manage the services with officers of integrity, honesty, efficiency and devotion. 18. In S.T. Ramesh, supra, it was held by the Supreme Court that the confidential report is an important document as it provides the basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of an officer and further achievements in his career. The performance appraisal through CRs should be used as a tool for human resource development and should not to be used as a fault-finding process but a developmental one. 19. There is another aspect of the matter peculiar about this case is that while in the immediate past years and next following years, performance of the petitioner has been assessed by the reporting officer, reviewing officer and accepting officer as ‘outstanding’ and ‘very good’. Only during the intervening year of 2011-12 his performance has been assessed as unsatisfactory. 20. We in this connection refer to judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Others, supra, wherein the Supreme Court, apart from holding that downgrading of entry should be communicated to the concerned employee as an extreme variation in gradation such as ‘outstanding’ gradation in one year followed by ‘satisfactory’ in the succeeding year, may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable. The Supreme Court, however, further observed that reasons for such a change must be recorded in the personal file and the employee must be informed of the change, otherwise the downgrading cannot be sustained. That judgment was approved by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt, supra, which rather held that every kind of grading should be communicated within reasonable period so that employee concerned may get an opportunity of representing. Representation should be decided fairly and within reasonable time. When a reference was made to Lager Bench of the Supreme Court about the correctness of the judgment in U.P. Jal Nigam, the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated the same law by approving the reasoned view taken in Dev Dutt, supra, holding that every entry in his APAR must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, which in the opinion of the Supreme Court achieved threefold objectives, namely, helps him/her in working harder and achieve more, he/she may feel dissatisfied with the same, thus enabling him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks and thus communication of every entry in the APAR brings transparency in the system. Though, in the present case, adverse remarks were communicated but nevertheless these letters also emphasize the need of objectivity, fairness, reasonableness and transparency in recording adverse remarks. 21. Advertising now to the facts of the case, again it needs to be observed at the costs of repetition that when in the APARs of the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 the performance of the petitioner was rated as ‘outstanding’/’very good’, how it would become ‘below average’ or ‘unsatisfactory’ during the assessment year 2011-12 along, is not clear and no discernible reasons are forthcoming. This wholly reflects on the objectivity and fairness of reporting officer and the competent authorities also failed to objectively examine the representation of the petitioner. 22. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. S.P. Nayyar, supra, relied on by learned Additional Advocate General for respondents, held that merely because the appellant no.3 assessed the ACR of respondent as “Good’ as against assessment of “Very Good” made by IO cannot prove that he was biased against the employee. 23. The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. S.P. Nayyar, supra, held that the bias and mala fide acts can be adjudged only on the basis of evidence. 23. The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. S.P. Nayyar, supra, held that the bias and mala fide acts can be adjudged only on the basis of evidence. The assessment of character roll by one or the other officer, giving a general grade such as “Good’ cannot be the sole ground to hold that the officer was biased against the person whose character roll is assessed. In that case it was held that there was nothing to suggest that the appellant no.3 was biased against the respondent. Merely because he assessed the ACR of the respondent as “Good’ as against assessment of “Very Good” made by IO it cannot be said that he was biased against the respondent. Facts of the present case are entirely different. Herein, the same officer has rated the petitioner as ‘outstanding’/’very-good’ in previous two years. The tenor and manner of recording the adverse remarks clearly reflects, if not malice, bias against the petitioner as such scathing remarks have at all not been/could not be justified by the respondents and are not found sustainable even on analysis of the record. 24. In view of foregoing discussion, the writ petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned adverse remarks against the petitioner in his APAR of the year 2011-12 are expunged. The assessment of the petitioner for that year is ordered to be restored, if not as ‘outstanding’, at-least to the grading ‘very good’. The order of the competent authority rejecting the representation of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits based on improved grading, consequential benefits entailing review consideration of his case for promotion, compliance whereof be made within a period of four months from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. 25. This also disposes of stay application no.8445/2014.