ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed against the order dated July 3, 1990, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition of appellant was dismissed.
(2.) THE appellant, in the writ petition, prayed that the adverse remarks, for the years, 1980, 1983 and 1984, contained in Annexures 1,2 and 3 respectively, be expunged and set aside. It was further prayed that the order dated December 1, 1988 (Annex. 7), by which, the representation filed by the appellant against the adverse entries mentioned above, were rejected, be also quashed and he be considered for promotion. The remarks, in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year, 1980, are as under: - "an Officer with the reputation of controversial man. Needs improvement. " It is submitted by Mr. Bandhu, learned counsel, that the learned Single Judge has held that the above remarks cannot be said to be adverse remarks, but are advisory in nature. The remarks in the ACR, for the year, 1983, are as under:- "not good officer. Lot of complaints against him in Banswara also. " It is further submitted that the appellant was not posted at any time, during the year, 1983, at Banswara and, therefore, the remarks as far as complaints against the appellant in Banswara are concerned, are wrong and false. This shows that the remarks have been given without any foundation. It is also submitted that ACRs. for a year become due only in the next year and entries, therefore, are made subsequent to the year, for which the remarks are given. It is possible that the officer concerned may be transferred and, while writing the remarks in the ACR, reference may be made to his reputation at the place of his new posting. From the remarks, for the year, 1983, it is evident that, while Hon'ble the Chief Justice wrote the remarks, the appellant was posted at Banswara and he received complaints regarding the appellant, while he was posted at Banswara also. Therefore, it cannot be said that these remarks are without any basis. The remarks, in the ACR, for the year 1984, are as under: - "corrupt Officer. " It is submitted by the learned counsel that these remarks are vague and without any factual foundation, as no instances of corruption have been mentioned. The learned counsel has referred to M. S. Sharma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (1), in which, the learned Single Judge held that while writing adverse remarks against Judicial Officer about his integrity, honesty and reputation, specific instances or particulars in support of adverse remarks must be given in the ACR, as required under Rule 6 of the Rules for Maintenance and Scrutiny of Confidential Reports (Personal Files) of the Judicial Officers in Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service. It may be pointed out that there are no such Rules framed in Rajasthan, therefore, this authority is of no assistance to the appellant. This decision has been given, keeping in view the Rules framed, regarding writing of ACRs. of Judicial Officers in Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel has also referred to A. K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others (2) and stressed that the rules of natural justice also require that specific instances should have been mentioned and conveyed to the appellant, so that, he could explain the specific allegations made against him. It may be pointed out that the principle of natural justice is applied in different ways, keeping in view the facts of a particular case. In the matter under consideration, the adverse remarks were conveyed to the appellant, his representation was considered and, thereafter, it was rejected. Therefore, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice have been ignored. Apart from this, in the case of A. K. Kraipak (supra), it was observed by the Apex Court in para 20 that "the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rale of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case. . . . . . . . Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision of the facts of that case. " Thus, it can be said that the principles of natural justice are not applicable in every case, as contended by the learned counsel. It may be pointed out that the learned Single Judge has rightly referred to an order of a Division Bench of this Court passed in the matter of a Judicial Officer, namely, M. P. Mittal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (3) and nine other writ petitions, in which, it was held that neither the giver of bribe nor the taker of illegal gratification will say anything and, therefore, specific instances, if any, will remain unsubstantiated. It was further held that even if there are no specific instances and the Administrative Judge or Chief Justice on assessment of work and conduct of the judicial officer concerned, makes an entry in his confidential roll that his integrity is doubtful and, even if the entry in respect of doubtful integrity is not communicated, it can furnish material for forming an opining that it is in the public interest to retire the Government servant compulsorily. Thus, in the case under consideration, it was not necessary to mention any specific instances of corruption, while the remark of "corrupt officer" was given by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. We do not find any force in this Special Appeal,which is, therefore, dismissed,in limine. .;