WA 237/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING) MR. A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY CJ (Acting) This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 0 9.06.2011 passed in WP(C) No.3216 of 2009 quashing the adverse remarks against t he writ petitioner conveyed by the communication dated 08.12.2008 by the Chairma n. The writ petitioner was employed as Deputy General Manager (Civil) with the appe llant. In his ACRs for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 certain adverse remarks wer e conveyed to the writ petitioner by the letter dated 08.12.2008. He sought to k now the basis for the adverse remarks made by the recording, reviewing and accep ting authorities and on failing to get response, he filed a writ petition i.e. W P(C) No.580 of 2009 in this Court. After he was allowed to make inspection of t he ACRs, he withdrew the writ petition and thereafter after getting the relevant information, he filed a fresh writ petition alleging that the procedure for rec ording the ACR was not fair in that the Chairman recorded the remarks 15 months after demitting his office. The appellant defended the validity of recording of remarks on the basis of offi ce order 26.12.1997. Learned Single Judge held that the adverse remarks were vitiated by not followin g the time schedule as per laid down procedure. We have heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant s, and Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that he has no objection to the quashing of the adverse remarks as conveyed vide communication dated 08.12.2008 and to that extent no interference is necessary with the order of the learned Si ngle Judge. However, the appellant should be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submits that he has no object ion to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified t o the effect that the appellant will be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matt er in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.