ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. G.II-1/2001-CRC dated 24.09.2001 issued under the Signature of Additional Dy. Inspector General of Police (Personnel-I) Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been communicated adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. Further prayer has been made for quashing the consequent order dated 17.03.2010 passed by the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force-respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner’s representation against the said adverse remarks has been summarily rejected without assigning any cogent reason or without going through the materials available on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Commandant, 10th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted in 121st Battalion at HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi, when he received the letter dated 24th September 2001 issued by the respondent no. 3, wherein adverse entries were recorded in his ACR for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. The said entries read as under: (i) You absented from performing operations duties on medical and other pretext. (ii) Has become a liability to the force. (iii) Work and Conduct below average. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a detailed representation on 19.11.2001 before the Director General of Central Reserve Police Force- respondent no. 2 against the aforesaid communication of adverse remarks, however, the same was summarily rejected vide order dated 4.10.2002. Thereafter, he moved this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2068 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.11.2009, setting aside the order dated 04.10.2002 and directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. Subsequently, his representati on was re-considered by the respondent no. 2, however, the same was again rejected vide order dated 17.03.2010 in a most arbitrary manner without applying its mind. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner again filed a representation on 10.05.2010 before the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi which was also rejected and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 19.01.2011 issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General (CR & VIG), New Delhi. He again represented the respondent no. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner again filed a representation on 10.05.2010 before the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi which was also rejected and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 19.01.2011 issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General (CR & VIG), New Delhi. He again represented the respondent no. 2 on 16.5.2012, which was also rejected and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 03.07.2012. The petitioner came to know the reasons for recording adverse remarks in his ACR for the first time when his representation was disallowed by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 4.10.2002. It was recorded in his ACR that the petitioner was always reluctant to perform operational duties and he was often away from Detachment Headquarters at Kashmir Valley on the pretext of illness, visiting unit headquarters at Kolkata and attending departmental enquiry pending against him. 5. It is further contended that the Initiating Officer or the Reviewing Officer of the petitioner did not put any comment against the petitioner and, therefore, it appears that the communication of the adverse remarks was a premeditated exercise with vested interests to jeopardize the future prospects of the petitioner. The petitioner was posted at Baramula in Jammu & Kashmir during the period 1999-2000 when he was actively involved in the operation against insurgency and during that time, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide memo dated 20.07.2000 for allegedly domesticating some livestock at his official residence while he was posted at Kokrajhar in Assam and in the said departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer was the DIGP, CRPF, New Delhi. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted at Baramula which was his operational headquarter whereas his department i.e. 10th Battalion had its administrative headquarter at Kolkata. In the said departmental proceeding, he had to attend the enquiry proceedings on various dates fixed by the enquiry officer at New Delhi and other places for which he had taken movement orders from his administrative head. 6. It is also submitted that because of the hard posting, the petitioner was diagnosed with Gross Lumbar Spondylitis for which he used to take constant medical advice at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi as well as at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. 6. It is also submitted that because of the hard posting, the petitioner was diagnosed with Gross Lumbar Spondylitis for which he used to take constant medical advice at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi as well as at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. The petitioner while visiting his administrative headquarter at Kolkata, also consulted the local government hospital and had to undergo various clinical tests for the aforesaid illness due to which he had taken leave with the permission of the administrative head. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that pursuant to the order dated 23.11.2009 passed by a Bench of this court in W.P. (S) No. 2068 of 2003, the respondent no. 2 re-considered the reply of the petitioner dated 19.11.2001, but he did not find merit in the same and as such the same was rejected vide order dated 17.03.2010. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, which was also rejected by the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi Letter No. R.XIII-19/2001-CRC dated 19.01.2011. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 8. It is further submitted that out of total period of 272 days (viz. from the date of his reporting at Detachment Headquarters at Baramula to the end of assessment period i.e. from 03.07.2000 to 31.03.2001) the petitioner remained absent from the operational area for 148 days i.e. more than half of the period which itself speaks about the justification of the remarks endorsed in his ACR. It is wrong to say that due to hard posting, the petitioner fell seriously ill, rather he was given posting in soft areas from 01.09.1982 to 18.02.1995. Since one of the representations of the petitioner filed against adverse remarks was already rejected, subsequent representations made by the petitioner was not maintainable. 9. It is also submitted that as per G.I., D.P. & A.R. Office Memorandum no. 21011/1/77-Estb. dated 30.01.1978, no memorial or appeal against rejection of the representation challenging adverse remarks was allowed after six months of rejection. Moreover, the operational performance of the petitioner was not up to mark due to his inconsistent performance and indifferent health condition. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 21011/1/77-Estb. dated 30.01.1978, no memorial or appeal against rejection of the representation challenging adverse remarks was allowed after six months of rejection. Moreover, the operational performance of the petitioner was not up to mark due to his inconsistent performance and indifferent health condition. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with the adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Report by the respondent no. 3. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain before this court that absence of the petitioner from the operational duties during his posting at Baramula, Jammu & Kashmir was due to illness as well as for participating in departmental enquiry which was beyond his control. Otherwise also, he had taken due permission of the controlling officer and the said facts were not considered by the respondent no. 2 at the time of rejecting the petitioner’s representation for expunging the adverse remark made in his ACR. 12. This court finds that earlier a writ petition for the same relief was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of directing the respondent no. 2 to consider his representation afresh. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 reconsidered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 17.03.2010. 13. It was observed in the order dated 17.03.2010 that out of the total period of posting at Detachment Headquarters at Baramula, Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioner was on leave for more than half of the period. It was further observed that when the then Director General, CRPF had visited Baramulla on 8th December, 2000 to assess the operational situation of the area, the command and control of the petitioner over his troops was not found upto the desired mark due to his long absence. Thus, the adverse remarks with regard to overall operational performance and the conduct of the petitioner were recorded by the competent authority on the basis of own assessment and sufficient material evidence on record against the petitioner. It was also observed that the petitioner was always away from Detachment HQrs. either due to leave/visiting unit headquarters at Kolkata or for attending departmental enquiry against him whereas his six companies were deployed in sensitive and terrorist infested area of J&K. According to the respondent no. It was also observed that the petitioner was always away from Detachment HQrs. either due to leave/visiting unit headquarters at Kolkata or for attending departmental enquiry against him whereas his six companies were deployed in sensitive and terrorist infested area of J&K. According to the respondent no. 2, he on the basis of relevant materials available on record had strong reasons to believe that the petitioner was reluctant to perform operational duties and the adverse remarks as recorded by the competent authority were based on actual performance of the petitioner during the period and on the established facts as well as other material evidence on record. 14. Thus, it appears to this court that the grounds taken by the petitioner for expunging the adverse remark were duly considered by the respondent no. 2 while rejecting his representation who found that the petitioner was reluctant to perform operational duties by citing various reasons. This Court is also of the view that proceeding on leave by taking due permission from the competent authority cannot be treated as a sufficient explanation to counter the allegation that he was avoiding the operational duties during the period of assessment on various grounds. 15. In the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. and Others vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2011) 10 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “147. Writing the confidential report is primarily and essentially an administrative function. Normally tribunals/courts are loath to interfere in cases of complaints against adverse remarks and to substitute their own judgment for that of the reporting or reviewing officers. It is because these officers alone are best suited to judge the qualities of officials working under them and about their competence in the performance of official duties entrusted to them. Despite fear of abuse of power by prejudiced superior officers in certain cases, the service record contained in the confidential reports, by and large, reflects the real personality of the officer. 148. The object of writing confidential reports and making entries therein is to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve excellence. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. 148. The object of writing confidential reports and making entries therein is to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve excellence. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. Therefore, the officer entrusted with the duty to write CR has a public responsibility and trust to write the CR objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible the statement of facts on an overall assessment of performance of the subordinate officer. Opportunity of hearing is not necessary before adverse remarks because adverse remarks by themselves do not constitute a penalty. However, when the order of compulsory retirement is passed, the authority concerned has to take into consideration the whole service record of the officer concerned which would include non-communicated adverse remarks also. Thus it is settled by several reported decisions of this Court that un-communicated adverse remarks can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether an official should be made to retire compulsorily or not.” 16. Thus, it is well settled that normally the court should not interfere with the adverse entry of a public servant in the ACR because the officers alone are best suited to judge the qualities of the officials working under them and about their competence in performing the official duties entrusted to them. Any entry in the ACR is made looking to the overall assessment of performance of an employee. It is not for the Court to see the adverse remarks entered in ACR with magnifying glass so as to substitute its own view superseding the view of the controlling officer who has made adverse entry. What is important is that any adverse remark entered in the ACR should be communicated to the concerned public servant so that he may get an opportunity to improve his performance. There is also no necessity of providing opportunity of hearing to a public servant before making any entry in the ACR since the adverse remarks themselves do not constitute penalty. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner was not given any warning that taking leave on medical ground or for going out of Detachment Headquarters for attending departmental proceeding would go against him and for which adverse remarks would be made in his ACR. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner was not given any warning that taking leave on medical ground or for going out of Detachment Headquarters for attending departmental proceeding would go against him and for which adverse remarks would be made in his ACR. He puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 7 , wherein it has been held that before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidential report should share the information, which is not a part of the record, with the concerned officer and 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. 18. The said argument of the petitioner was duly considered by the respondent no. 2 in the order dated 17.03.2010, who rejected his plea by observing that IGP-E/Sector had issued an advisory dated 14.11.2000 to the petitioner taking serious note of his approaching Directorate General directly for his transfer on grounds of personal grievances, ill health etc. ignoring the prescribed channel. 19. Even if the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is treated to have some substance, then also the said stage is already over since in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, he had an opportunity to take such plea, however, he failed to avail the same. Otherwise also, remarks made in the ACR of the petitioner were based on record and were not required to be specifically communicated to him before making entry in the ACR and thus the proposition laid down in Yamuna Shanker Mishra (Supra.) is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. 20. Hence, the petitioner has failed to make out any case so as to interfere with the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 21. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.