1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN.) -- The appellant a Senior Civil Judge, has preferred this appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for expunction of adverse remarks, recorded in his A.C.R. for the year 1981 and communicated to him on 30th March, 1982. These remarks are as under :- "Pen Picture.-He is clever and resourceful." Remarks of the first countersigning officer ; "This officer has all along had bad reputation. Even now a District Judge states that he is clever, resourceful and fit for diplomatic job. I rate him an average officer. He should be careful." The appellant has prayed that the above remarks may be expunged from his Annual Confidential Report because these remarks have been given by the Chief Justice while relying on the observations of the District Judge. That the Chief Justice should have rated him objectively on the basis of facts and figures and a casual remark of bad repute should not have been made the basis for spoiling the career of a judicial officer.

2. It has on the other hand, been pointed out by the Registrar, High Court, Sind, in his written statement, that the appellant was appointed and posted as Civil Judge on 1st January, 1974. In the Annual Con fidential Report for the very first year of his service the appellant earned the remark that he was an officer of average integrity'. In the year 1975 the District Judge, Hyderabad, recorded his adverse remarks against him that his integrity was 'below average' and this was repeated in his `pen picture' that the officer was indiscreet, tactless and of doubt ful integrity'

3. The adverse remarks for the year 1975 were repeated in 1976 and these led to the holding of a departmental inquiry against the appellant for disciplinary action. However, for want of sufficient evidence, the departmental inquiry was dropped and no further action was taken against the appellant, who was allowed to continue in service. The Adverse remarks for the years 1975 and 1976, however, remained on the record of the appellant and they were not expunged as the result of the departmental inquiry. The remarks earned by the appellant even thereafter for the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 were just average and not better. There was, therefore, no improvement in his conduct even after the departmental enquiry.

4. There is thus sufficient basis for the remarks in 1981 that the officer had all along a bad reputation. It is not understood what facts and figures the appellant desires to be mentioned as basis of these remarks.

5. The superior officers like the District Judge and the Chief Justice are the only officers who can accurately assess the work and conduct of the subordinate Judge serving under them. They are the best judges of his work, conduct and character. The basis for their opinion can be very extensive, depending on their own observation, the general reputation and such other material which may have been brought to theirs notice. All this material does not generally form part of the record. The opinion is formed by the superior officers on the basis of conglomeration of event too minute to be noticed individually and recorded separately. The total impact of such events, however, brings into focus a clear image of the persons before them. The superior officers cannot, therefore, be asked to produce material on which they based their opinion. Nor should there bet any corpus on the superior officers to express themselves freely while record ing their opinion concerning their subordinates. If the aggrieved party feels that the remarks were wholly unjustified and they alleged any mala fides, they can challenge the exercise of this discretion, if backed by firm and cogent reasons. The Chief Justice of the High Court is the administrative head of the judiciary and responsible for general supervi sion and control of the subordinate Courts. With the falling of standards all round, this task of maintaining high integrity of judicial officers has become more and more difficult. It should be entirely left to the Chief Justice to keep out officers who in his opinion have earned bad reputation regarding his integrity. His discretion in this respect, while considering cases for promotion should be left unfettered. Time was, when a com plaint was received by the Chief Justice concerning the honesty and integrity of a subordinate judicial officer, the officer was immediately sum moned by the Chief Justice and asked to resign or to face an enquiry. Invariably the officer would quietly vacate the chair and leave the depart ment without undue publicity. Dishonestly in judiciary was, therefore, rare and prompt action used to be taken to nip the tendency in the bud. Looking to the Confidential Reports of the appellant throughout hi, career one is left to wonder, how an officer of that reputation has comple ted the two years period of probation, and has been allowed to continue to dispense justice between man and man, and keep occupying the sacred chair.

6. We accordingly find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.