( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ. of Mandamus quashing and setting aside certain adverse remarks made in his Coincidental Report for the period between 13/10/1986 and 31/03/1987 been illegal ultra vires and violative of the principles of natural justice.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1986 he was serving as Police Sub-Inspector (P. S. I.) at Porbandar. His father expired on 12/12/1986 and therefore he proceeded on leave up to 31/12/1986 During his absence on 20/12/1986 one Sarman Munja was murdered in a gang war and the name of one Kala Keshav was disclosed who was reported to be absconding. Intensive search was made to trace him out but he was not found. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was not in charge of that case he look rigorous steps to apprehend the absconding accused. As many as 13 raids had been carried out by him in. January 1987 3 raids in February 1987 and 2 raids in March 1987 but Kala Keshav was not found. Ultimately he was apprenhended by the end of 1988 from Jamnagar District by Jamnagar Police Authorities.

( 3 ) THE Confidential Reports for the year 1986-87 had been communicated to the petitioner by a communication dated 21/05/1988 wherein certain adverse entries were made. It was stated that the petitioner could not arrest Kala Keshav a notorious criminal for a sufficient long time. It was also stated that the petitioner was given an enquiry regarding pending muddamal of Porbandar City Police Station on 9/12/1986 and it was not completed by him.

( 4 ) THE petitioner made representation on 2/07/1988 to the reviewing authority explaining the circumstances under which Keshav Kala (sic) could not be apprehended. He also submitted that the enquiry was pending since long even prior to his posting at Porbander and that he was not responsible for the alleged delay. The said representation was however turned down by the reviewing authority and the remarks which were passed against the petitioner were not deleted. A communication was sent to the petitioner on 28/02/1989 Since the adverse remarks were recorded against the petitioner and the representation was turned down the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition.

( 5 ) MR. A. J. Shah the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of contentions. He submitted that though adverse entries in the Confidential Reports were for the period between October 1986 and March 1987 they were communicated at a belated stage i. e. after more then one year and therefore they cannot be taken into consideration. He further submitted that though the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-Director General of Police no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the said order was therefore violative of natural justice and is required to be quashed. He also submitted that even though a number of submission had been made and material particulars had been mentioned in the representation to the respondent without application of mind by the respondent a cryptic and laconic order has been passed rejecting the representation. No reasons have been in support of the order passed by the respondent and on that ground also the order requires to be quashed and set aside.

( 6 ) MR. A. M. Panchal the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other hand supported the order passed by the first Authority and confirmed by the respondent herein putting adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner. He submitted that adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner within a reasonable time and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to make representation against those remarks which the petitioner has made. After considering pros and cons of the matter the respondent rejected the said representation and it is neither necessary the respondent before rejecting the said representation to hear the petitioner nor to record reasons. The pet