JUDGMENT : P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J The above Original Petition (CAT) is filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2014 in OA No.416 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench(herein after mentioned as Tribunal). The petitioner herein is the applicant in the above Original Application and the respondents herein are the respondents therein. 2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Kerala, Ernakulam Branch. Aggrieved by down grading entries made by Reviewing Officer in his Annual Confidential Report (For short ACR) and the consequential denial of promotion as Accounts Officer, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. He has challenged the below bench mark ACRs, Annexure-A1 of 2007-2008 and Annexure-A6 of 2008-2009. In both these ACRs, though the Reporting Officers have given good remarks, the Reviewing Officers have down graded it to average. Hence, the petitioner challenged Exts A1 and A6 ACR for the period 2007-2008 and 2008-09. The petitioner also challenged Exts A2 to A5 and A7 to A9 and A22 orders and communications ensued as a sequence to adverse entries in the aforesaid ACRs. 3. After hearing both sides, as per order dated 4.7.2013 in OA No.416 of 2012 (Ext P4), the Tribunal allowed the Original Application and declared that the applicants grading in ACR of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 shall be modified and read as 'Good'. Consequently, all the impugned orders in the Original Application were quashed and set aside in so far as they carry the average report . Respondents were directed to conduct review DPC. 4. Challenging Ext P4 order dated 4.7.2013, the respondents herein filed OP(CAT) No.3836 of 2013 before this court. This court admitted the Original Application confining the admission of the Original Petition to an examination of the limited aspects as to the ACR entry of “average”, for the year 2008-2009. That means, this court upheld the findings in Ext P4 regarding the ACR entry of the petitioner for the year 2007-2008 having been declared 'good' by the Tribunal. 5. After hearing both sides, this court as per Ext P5 judgment dated 13.11.2013 in OP(CAT)No.3836 of 2013, allowed the Original Application setting aside Ext P4 order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to the petitioner's ACR of 2008-2009 and the findings and reasons in the Tribunal's order to that extent. 5. After hearing both sides, this court as per Ext P5 judgment dated 13.11.2013 in OP(CAT)No.3836 of 2013, allowed the Original Application setting aside Ext P4 order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to the petitioner's ACR of 2008-2009 and the findings and reasons in the Tribunal's order to that extent. This court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in relation to the petitioner's ACR of 2008-2009. This court remanded the matter mainly for the reason that, the Tribunal does not appear to have adverted to the materials which are on record as regard the reasoning of the Reviewing Officer to dilute the grading given by the Reporting Officer. This court observed that only an assimilation of such materials, the Tribunal could conclude that those materials were insufficient to substantiate the dilution of the grading. 6. The relevant portion of the order of this court in Ext P5 is extracted here under. 6. In the light of the fact that the aforesaid materials were available before it, it was necessary that those materials ought to have been considered by the Tribunal to decide as to whether the decision of the Deputy Comptroller & Auditor General in Annexure-A7 deserved to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Such consideration calls for expression of reasons as to why those materials are insufficient if the decision had to go in favour of the employee. We are of the view that those materials escaped appropriate consideration of the learned Tribunal. The impugned order dated 4.7.2013 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.416 of 2012 is liable to be set aside to the extent of interference made through it and the directions issued as regards the employee's ACR of 2008-2009. 7. Based on the directions in Ext P5, the Tribunal reconsidered the matter and dismissed the Original Application as per Ext P8 order. Challenging Ext P8 order, this OP(CAT) is filed by the petitioner. 8. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the 9. After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that, respondents this is not a fit case in which interference of the order passed by the Tribunal is warranted. It is a settled position that, we cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Departmental authorities regarding the entries in ACR. 10. After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that, respondents this is not a fit case in which interference of the order passed by the Tribunal is warranted. It is a settled position that, we cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Departmental authorities regarding the entries in ACR. 10. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there is no justification for giving an entry of 'average' in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons mentioned in Exts R4(e) & R7 are not justified and there was no laxity or delay on the part of the applicant in submitting internal audit report as stated by the Reviewing Officer. It is also stated by the counsel for the petitioner that, no explanations were called for, nor was the applicant directed to show cause for the delay occasioned; which is alleged as a dereliction of duty. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, before the entry of 'average' in the ACR, no notice was issued to the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the Tribunal. 11. After Ext P5 remand order of this court, the duty of the Tribunal was limited to examine the legality and proportionality of the Annexure-A6 ACR for the year 2008-09 and the issues relating to it. Annexure-A6 is the copy of the ACR of the petitioner for the period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. Annexure-A6 was communicated to the petitioner as per Annexure-A5 memorandum. On receiving Annexure-A6 report, the petitioner submitted his objection to it as per representation dated 14.10.2010. As per Annexure-A7, the 2nd respondent considered all the contentions of the petitioner and rejected the same. The relevant portion of Annexure-A7 is extracted here under: I have considered the representation dated 14.10.2010 of Shri.K.P.Manoj, Assistant Accounts Officer of Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram against downgrading the final grading in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period 2008-09 from “Good” as awarded by Reporting Officer to “Average” by the Reviewing Officer. 2. The petitioner has requested for restoration of the grading awarded by the Reporting Officer i.e, “Good” as final grading on the following grounds:- a. The Reviewing Officer has not cited any specific reasons for lowering the grade, other than mentioning petitioner's performance as “Average”. 2. The petitioner has requested for restoration of the grading awarded by the Reporting Officer i.e, “Good” as final grading on the following grounds:- a. The Reviewing Officer has not cited any specific reasons for lowering the grade, other than mentioning petitioner's performance as “Average”. The Reviewing Officer was prejudicial and unfair in lowering the Grade, ignoring the assessment of the Reporting Officer. b. During the Reporting period, the petitioner has done all the work as assigned by the Internal Audit Officer to his satisfaction and the fact was acknowledged by the Reporting Officer. 3. After going through the APAR for the period 2008-09, the representation of the petitioner in the light of facts and comments of the Reporting and Reviewing Officers thereon, my observations are as follows:- a. Internal Audit Section functions as the eyes and ears of the Accountant General who is therefore, the best judge of its working. The Reviewing Officer was well aware of the performance of the petitioner. Hence, not being satisfied with the grading awarded by the Reporting Officer, the Reviewing Officer graded the petitioner as per his own assessment. Moreover, ample evidences have also been given by the Reviewing Officer to justify the grading awarded to the petitioner. For eg, in the Reporting Year 2008-09, four sections were audited by the petitioner. Against the target of 15 days for issue of the report, the time taken by petitioner was 116 days, 175 days, 150 days and 136 days respectively to submit the report to his superior. b. It is true that the remarks and grading awarded by the Reporting Officer reveal that he was satisfied with the working of the petitioner but it does not mean that the Reviewing Officer will also agree with Reporting Officer. In the capacity of the Reviewing Officer and being in direct supervision of Internal Audit Section, he can judge the performance of the officer reported upon at his own level. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not right. 4. In view of the above, I find no merit in the representation dated 14.10.2020 of Shri K.P.Manoj, Assistant Accounts Officer and therefore confirm the grading as awarded by the Reviewing Officer. 12. Reading of Annexure-A7 will show 2nd that, respondent considered all the aspects and the contention raised by the petitioner was specifically dealt with in the order in detail. In view of the above, I find no merit in the representation dated 14.10.2020 of Shri K.P.Manoj, Assistant Accounts Officer and therefore confirm the grading as awarded by the Reviewing Officer. 12. Reading of Annexure-A7 will show 2nd that, respondent considered all the aspects and the contention raised by the petitioner was specifically dealt with in the order in detail. The 2nd respondent also called for the remarks of the Reviewing Officer and the Reviewing Officer, which was submitted as per Annexure-R4(e) with explanation for down grading of the ACR. Thereafter Annexure-A7 is passed. The Tribunal considered Annexure-A7 in detail and found that there is nothing to interfere in it. The alleged malafide action of respondent No.5 was also considered by the authorities in detail and the Tribunal also discussed the same and found that, there is nothing to suspect any malafides on the part of the 5th respondent. It may be true that, in so far as the branch office is concerned, the petitioner was “Good” in work. But as he was a member of the internal audit section, he was working directly under the Accountant General. Hence, 5th respondent had better opportunity to assess the work and the achievement for target fixed for the petitioner. 13. Similarly, the Tribunal even went to the extent of examining, whether Annexure-A9 order promoting the immediate junior of the applicant is correct and the decision of DPC not to consider the applicant for promotion in view of the adverse entry, requires any interference. Paragraph 16 & 17 of Ext P8 order deals with the same. Actually it is beyond the scope of Ext P5 remand order of this court. According to us, the Tribunal considered all the aspects and concluded like this: 18. Taking into consideration of the facts, circumstances and records produced by both sides this Tribunal is of the view that the down grading of the ACR by the reviewing officer in Annexure A6 does not call for any interference. The consequent effects of such down grading also is bound to remain unassailable. Therefore, it goes without saying that the OA, in so far as the adverse entries in Annexure A6 is concerned, should only to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly the OA as regards to the issues arising in relation to the applicant's ACR of 2008-2009 is dismissed. The consequent effects of such down grading also is bound to remain unassailable. Therefore, it goes without saying that the OA, in so far as the adverse entries in Annexure A6 is concerned, should only to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly the OA as regards to the issues arising in relation to the applicant's ACR of 2008-2009 is dismissed. It is made clear that, as confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court's judgment dated 13.11.2013 in OP(CAT) No.3836 of 2013, the findings of this Tribunal and the resultant order as regards the applicants ACR 2007-2008 remain the same. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 14. According to us, there is nothing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, before making adverse entry in ACR, notice should be given to the petitioner is unsustainable. If an adverse entry is made in the ACR, it should be communicated and if the officer concerned has got any grievance, that should be dealt with in accordance with law. But, it is not the Rule that, before making adverse entry, the petitioner should be heard in detail. In Dev Dutt v. Union of India & others ( (2008)8 SCC 725 )) the Supreme Court only observed that the adverse entry/remarks in the ACR should be communicated to the officer concerned within a reasonable period, so that the employee concerned gets an opportunity of representation for improvement of his grading. In the above decision, it is also held that representation should be decided fairly and within a reasonable period. But, before making the entries/remarks, there is no rule that a notice is to be issued to the officer. It is for the authority to decide whether a dereliction of or defect in discharge of duty warrants a penalty and then again a minor or major penalty, in which even alone a show cause notice is required. If the authority merely takes note of a slackness in work or an uncalled for lethargy, it could reflect in the ACR for which no prior notice is required. It is not as if every defect noticed should be immediately informed to the employee; when the employee is aware of his duties and the need to be diligent in the discharge of such duties. It is not as if every defect noticed should be immediately informed to the employee; when the employee is aware of his duties and the need to be diligent in the discharge of such duties. In such circumstances, the notice before making adverse entry in the ACR is not necessary. 15. The scope of judicial review against the entry in ACR is very limited. In Anil Mishra v. Union of India & others (2008)7 SCC 732 , the Supreme Court considered this point. Relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted here under: “We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties, and we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the High Court or the Tribunal. This is not a case where the adverse entry was not communicated to the appellant. It was not only communicated but the appellant made representation against the adverse entry, which was considered by the Chief Commissioner, who rejected the representation by a detailed speaking order of five pages. Further memorial to the Central Government has also been considered and dismissed. Thus three senior officers have considered the appellant's case and rejected the same. We cannot sit as an appellate authority over these orders. The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is limited as has been repeatedly held by this Court, vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India.” 16. Reading of Ext P8 order will show that, the Tribunal considered all the aspects as directed by this court in Ext P5 remand order. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere in Ext P8 order. Hence, OP(CAT) No.122 of 2015 is dismissed. No costs.