JUDGMENT : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. Heard Mr. B.M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking the jurisdiction vested in this Court under provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 15th of November 2022, by which the respondents have resolved to retain an earlier entry of adverse remark in the annual confidential report of the petitioner for the period 2018 to 2019. 3. The petitioner had joined the services of the Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of brevity) on 25th of November 1983 as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA). By an order of 24th of December 1983, the service of the petitioner was regularised against the post of a District Grade Lower Division Assistant. By another office order dated 17th of November 1987 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, the petitioner, along with other candidates, was appointed as Lower Division Assistant cum Typist. By another order dated 9/10/2013, the petitioner was transferred from the headquarters and posted to Dibrugarh to take over charge as a District Officer(in charge) at the Dibrugarh office. Thereafter, the petitioner, along with other incumbents, was promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant in the Headquarters by an order dated 4th March 2014. 4. A gradation list was prepared by the Establishment Branch of the respondent Board on 25.5.2018, where the petitioner was shown to be senior to the private respondents. Despite such seniority, by an order dated 12th of August 2020, the private respondents herein were promoted to the post of Superintendent by superseding the petitioner. Upon applications under the provisions of the Right to Information Act,2005, being filed on behalf of the petitioner by his daughter, it was revealed that the petitioner’s Annual Confidential reports were found to be “favourable” in the statement showing the list of employees holding feeder posts who were recommended for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent. However, no reasons were disclosed as to why the petitioner had been denied his promotion and why he had been superseded by the private respondents. However, no reasons were disclosed as to why the petitioner had been denied his promotion and why he had been superseded by the private respondents. 5.The petitioner had thereafter preferred WP(C) no 4067/2020, praying for quashing of the order dated 12.8.2020, insofar as it granted promotion to his junior colleagues by superseding him, and for further directions to the respondent Board to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent in accordance with his seniority. The Board contested this writ petition by filing an affidavit wherein it was asserted that though at the time of preparation of the select list for promotion to the post of UDA, it was mentioned that the ACR of the petitioner was favourable for the reason that out of the three ACRs under consideration, namely the ACR of 2016- 17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the first two ACRs were favourable, the Departmental Promotional Committee had taken into account the ACR for 2018-2019 also into account, which ACR contained adverse remarks against the petitioner. Responding to the said stand, the petitioner brought on record, by way of a rejoinder affidavit, the fact that he had never been informed about any adverse remarks in his ACR during his entire career and further, that in any view of the matter, uncommunicated adverse entries in the ACRs under consideration could not be taken into account while considering his case for promotions. 6. By order dated 19.3.2021 passed in WP(C) No.4067/2020, this Court had directed the respondents to communicate the adverse remarks made in the petitioner’s ACR to the petitioner, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 to allow him to make a representation against the same. Thereafter, the representation by the petitioner, if any, was to be decided by an authority higher than the person who gave the adverse entry. If the authority higher than the authority that gave the adverse entry upgraded the entry/grading in the petitioner’s ACR, the respondents were required to convene a Review DPC to consider the promotion of the petitioner retrospectively, i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted. If the petitioner was promoted, he was to be given all consequential benefits, including seniority. 7. If the authority higher than the authority that gave the adverse entry upgraded the entry/grading in the petitioner’s ACR, the respondents were required to convene a Review DPC to consider the promotion of the petitioner retrospectively, i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted. If the petitioner was promoted, he was to be given all consequential benefits, including seniority. 7. The respondents, through a communication dated 23-04-2021, communicated the adverse remarks to the petitioner in respect of the ACR year 2018-19. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 28-4- 2021, which was received by the office on 30-4-2021. The petitioner superannuated from his service on 31.7.2022. 8.Thereafter, the Board of Directors, in its meeting held on 14.11.2022, discussed the representation filed by the petitioner and unanimously resolved to keep unchanged the earlier entry of adverse remark in the ACR of the petitioner as given by the erstwhile Chief Executive Officer of the Board for the period 2018-2019. 9.Cont. Case(C) no 37/2022, initiated by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 19.3.2021 passed in WP(C) No.4067/2020, was closed by the order dated 13.3.2023 in view of the resolution dated 14.11.2022, which was communicated by order dated 15.11.2022, by granting the liberty to the petitioner to assail the order dated 15.11.2022, if so advised. 10.Exercising the liberty granted, this present writ petition has been filed. Notices upon the state respondent and the Board, along with its instrumentalities, had been received by the standing counsel. These respondents were represented during the hearing of the matter, and an affidavit in response to the writ petition had been filed on behalf of the Board. Notices issued to the private respondents, namely the respondents Nos 7 and 8, were delivered on 17.06.2025. Service in respect of the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 thus stood completed; however, they preferred to remain unrepresented. In view of the nature of the grievances projected by the petitioner and also since the state respondents had contested the matter, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the same based on the materials available before it. 11.By the order dated 27.2.2026, this Court had observed that the learned Standing counsel, Khadi & Village Industries Board, had submitted that the records relevant for adjudication of the present issue were not traceable in the Board. 11.By the order dated 27.2.2026, this Court had observed that the learned Standing counsel, Khadi & Village Industries Board, had submitted that the records relevant for adjudication of the present issue were not traceable in the Board. On a perusal of the affidavit filed by the Board, this Court found that the contemporaneous records required to be so perused to arrive at an objective satisfaction about the remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2018-2019 were neither placed before the Board nor perused by it when it had considered the representation of the petitioner. As per the order dated 12.03.2026, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board had submitted before this Court that the records based on which the Board had taken the decision are not available and that the Board reviewed the ACR only with reference to the remarks available in the ACR itself. 12.Mr. B M Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the remarks in the ACR for 2018-2019, as given by the recording officer, are to the effect that the petitioner had performed as the District Officer and overall-in-charge of the Dibrugarh District Office and had attended all meetings with the district Administration. His conduct was good, he was found to be regular and punctual in attendance, and he was trusty (sic. trustworthy??). The recording officer had also assessed him to be fit for confirmation/bearing higher responsibility. Drawing attention to the adverse remarks made by the accepting authority through the undated handwritten note in the ACR itself, Mr. Deka has submitted that the remarks seek to give an impression that the petitioner is a liar and that he used to leave the headquarters, very often without permission, which raised questions on his integrity and dedication. The learned counsel has submitted that such remarks were unsupported by any records. In fact, if the remarks of the immediate superior authority, who had acted as the recording officer of the ACR, are taken into consideration, the allegations of leaving headquarters made by the accepting officer would stand wholly believed. The recording officer had specifically recorded that the petitioner was a punctual officer who maintained his regularity and who had also attended all meetings of the District Administration. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations of the petitioner being a liar have been levelled without reference to any specific instance. The recording officer had specifically recorded that the petitioner was a punctual officer who maintained his regularity and who had also attended all meetings of the District Administration. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations of the petitioner being a liar have been levelled without reference to any specific instance. Moreover, even this allegation is wholly contradicted by the specific remark of the recording officer that the petitioner was a “trusty” person who was also assessed to be fit for bearing higher responsibilities. The learned counsel has, thereafter, submitted that, in the absence of records, the Board of Directors had acted illegally in retaining the adverse entries. The learned counsel has accordingly prayed that the prayers made in writ petition quashing of the order dated 15.11.2022, whereby the representation of the petitioner had been rejected, and expunging the adverse remark in his ACR for the period 2018-2019 and the prayer for affording the petitioner his due promotions from 12.8.2020, i.e. the date on which his juniors had been promoted deserve to be allowed. He has placed reliance on the following judgments to buttress his arguments: i. Dev Dutt vs Union of India , reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 ii. Sukhdeo vs Commissioner, Amaravati Division , reported in (1996) 5 SCC 103 iii. M A Rajasekhar vs State of Karnataka , reported in (1996) 10 SCC 369 iv. State of UP vs Yamuna Shankar Misra , reported in (1997) 4 SCC 7 13. Mr. P.K Munir, learned counsel appearing for the Board, has relied upon the stand taken in the affidavit in opposition and has submitted that the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of UDC along with the other service holders under consideration as the DPC found adverse marks in his ACR for the period 2018 and 19. The learned Counsel has submitted that it is not necessary in law to act judicially while disposing of representations filed against adverse entries in the ACR, and there is no legal obligation to record or communicate reasons by the appellate authority for its decision while rejecting the representation filed by an aggrieved government servant. He has further submitted that rejection of the Representation does not affect any vested right of the government servant, and it does not visit him with any civil consequences. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. He has further submitted that rejection of the Representation does not affect any vested right of the government servant, and it does not visit him with any civil consequences. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, and I have also gone through the records placed in the writ petition and the affidavit in opposition filed by the Board. The circumstances in this case present a dismal picture. The adverse remarks recorded by the accepting authority are in complete contrast to the remarks recorded by the reporting authority insofar as the regularity and punctuality of the petitioner is concerned for the relevant period, namely 2018-2019. The accepting authority initiated the adverse remarks by calling the petitioner a liar without specifying any particular instance. There are no records of any advisories or warnings being issued to the petitioner, not to speak of any disciplinary proceedings and yet the Accepting authority had gone ahead to remark adversely on the integrity and dedication of the petitioner. While the reporting officer qualified the petitioner's service as a regular officer, who also attended all meetings with the District Administration and had assessed him to be trustworthy and fit for bearing higher responsibility, the accepting officer, by mere stroke of pen, recorded adverse entries which have cascaded evil social consequences upon the petitioner in the form of denying him his due promotions. The adverse entries for the period 2018-2019 were not communicated to him prior to his case being put up before the Departmental Promotional Committee. Even on his requests, he was not provided the adverse entries in his ACR, and this Court had to interfere to ensure that the petitioner is afforded his entitlement to represent against the adverse entries. Even as he filed the representation, the same was not considered within the time frame allotted, and officials of the Board had to face contempt proceedings before this Court. When the representation was placed before the appellate authority/Board of Directors, it was purportedly resolved unanimously to keep unchanged the earlier entry of adverse remark in the ACR of the petitioner. The minutes of the meeting dated 14th November, 2022, do not disclose whether the records, which may have justified the recording of the adverse entries, had been discussed before a decision to retain them had been arrived at. The minutes of the meeting dated 14th November, 2022, do not disclose whether the records, which may have justified the recording of the adverse entries, had been discussed before a decision to retain them had been arrived at. It was only when this Court required the production of records that the Board admitted the complete absence of records. 15.Without commenting on the intent of the members of the Board in deciding to retain the adverse entries in the ACR of the petitioner even though there were not records to substantiate the same and even though the Accepting Authority divulged no reasons for differing with the observations of the reporting officer, this Court expresses its dissatisfaction in the manner in which the representation of the petitioner had been dealt with. 16.Coming back to the merits of the arguments laid on behalf of the petitioner, this Court cannot ignore the fact that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner appears to have caught the attention of the Board of Directors when his representation was being considered and in fact, the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors refers only to communications made by the AKIVB office with the Handloom, Textiles and Sericulture Department. In the teeth of the admitted position that no records were placed before the Board of Directors to review the adverse remarks in the ACR, this Court is also of the considered opinion that alleged unanimous decision of the Board to retain the adverse remarks would qualify as nothing more than a mockery of the powers invested in the Board to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has been subjected to illegality and arbitrariness not only when adverse entries were recorded in the ACR of the petitioner by the accepting authority without justifying such remarks and without justifying the difference of opinion with the reporting officer, he was also prejudiced when the DPC decided to act upon the adverse remarks to deny him a promotion even when he had no opportunity to assail the adverse entries. The representation of the petitioner also did not receive judicious consideration from the Board of Directors. 17. Given the above position, this Court has also deemed it fit to analyse whether the comments/remarks given by the accepting authority can be sustained in law. The representation of the petitioner also did not receive judicious consideration from the Board of Directors. 17. Given the above position, this Court has also deemed it fit to analyse whether the comments/remarks given by the accepting authority can be sustained in law. The objective of giving remarks and/or gradings in the performance reports by the reporting officer and the reviewing officers has been explained in different judicial pronouncements in M.A. Rajasekhar vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. , reported in (1996) 10 SCC 369 , the Apex Court had held that it is 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 to grade him to 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. It was further held that when adverse remarks are recorded in the ACR, the same must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did not perform that duty satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. He should be given an opportunity in the cases that may have triggered the adverse remark. Since in that case, no such opportunity was given and there was no record to show that the authority guided him as to the manner in which he acted upon, the Apex Court held that it would be obvious that the adverse remark was not consistent with law. Following the law enunciated above, this Court finds that the introduction of the adverse remarks in the ACR by the accepting authority, in the total absence of any indication in that direction by the reporting officer, was not consistent with the law. There are no records available to support the adverse remarks; the adverse remarks are in total contrast to the remarks given by the reporting officer. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the adverse remarks recorded by the accepting officer in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 2018-2019 are inconsistent with law and deserve the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the aforesaid remarks are expunged. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the adverse remarks recorded by the accepting officer in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 2018-2019 are inconsistent with law and deserve the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the aforesaid remarks are expunged. It has already been noticed that the manner in which the representation of the petitioner had been rejected cannot stand the scrutiny of the law. Therefore, the resolutions adopted in the meeting dated 14.11.2022, insofar as they relate to retaining the adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 2018-2019, are set aside and quashed. 18.By the order dated 19.3.2021 passed in WP(C) No.4067/2020, this Court had directed the respondents to convene a Review DPC to consider the promotion of the petitioner retrospectively, i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted. If the petitioner was promoted, he was to be given all consequential benefits, including seniority. With the setting aside of the adverse remarks given by the accepting officer, the respondents are now directed to convene a Review DPC to consider the promotion of the petitioner retrospectively, i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted and further to give all consequential benefits to him, including seniority. It is the specific case of the respondent Board that the promotion had been denied to the petitioner, based only on the adverse remarks. Since the same now stands quashed, the adverse remarks should not be taken into consideration by the DPC while considering the petitioner for promotion to the higher grade. Since the appellant has retired from service, he would not be entitled to any pay or allowances for the period for which he had not worked in the higher post. However, his retrospective promotion from the date of promotion of his juniors shall be considered for the benefit of re-fixation of his pension and other retrial benefits as per rules. The respondents should carry out the entire exercise directed above within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. The unwarranted and unexplained adverse remarks made by the then CEO had not only impeded the career progression of the petitioner but had also led to two rounds of litigation. The officer making the remarks cannot be said to be oblivious of the law relating to compiling the Annual Confidential Report. 19. The unwarranted and unexplained adverse remarks made by the then CEO had not only impeded the career progression of the petitioner but had also led to two rounds of litigation. The officer making the remarks cannot be said to be oblivious of the law relating to compiling the Annual Confidential Report. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated in the foregoing paragraphs with exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- recoverable by the Board from the officer who made the remarks. 20.The writ petition is disposed of.