Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, we find that the letters dated 8.10.2004, 1.7.2004 and 29.10.2004 were of anterior to date of the year 2005-06 i.e. 1.4.2005 and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that they do not pertain to the period 2004-05 i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, cannot be faulted. In the first place, the existence of those letters has not been proved and it has also not been proved whether those letters were actually served on the respondent. Even if it is assumed that those letters were indeed issued and pertained to the period 2004-05 since all the three dates fall within year 2004-05, they could form basis for adverse remarks in the APAR of the year 2005-06. The letters are significant because they were in the form of advisory to the respondent to improve his performance. Even though the Reviewing Authority-Executive Officer has submitted that he has issued such advisory to the respondent, but the appellant failed to prove the existence or service of such letters to the respondent. If, however, those letters were responsible for
