1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) Moral ... Sense of responsibility. (a) General ... Interest in social welfare . Is inclined to treat this aspect of his duty as routine function. Interest in economic develop Is inclined to treat this aspect of ment. his duty as routine function. He was divested of his judicial work before I took over on account of bad reputation. He has the tendency to act without jurisdiction as he did to the local bodies elections. An officer of doubtful integrity ; judicial work was withdrawn from him on receipt of persistent reports of corruption." (c) Appeal No. 546/1703 of 1981, 21‑1‑1980 to 31‑12‑1980. Remarks recorded by D. C. "He is not enjoying good reputation, about his judicial honesty Remarks recorded by District and Sessions Judge. "Had the reputation of being corrupt." While working at Toba Tek Singh, the Assistant Commissioner Toba Tek Singh reported him as an average officer for the period from 10‑1‑1979 to 21‑7‑1979, and the countersigning authority viz. Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad found him an officer of a doubtful integrity and observed that judicial work was withdrawn from him on receipt of persistent reports of corruption. In the second appeal of the same year Ch. Nazir Ahmad A. C.. Toba Tek Singh, reported that "he was divested of his judicial work before I took over on account of bad reputation. He has the tendency to act without jurisdiction as he did in the local bodies elections. The Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad while countersigning the report observed that the appellant was" an officer of doubtful integrity ; judicial work was withdrawn from him on receipt of persistent reports of corruption." For the year 1980, the A. C. Mianwali; found the appellant a talented officer but D. C., Mianwali observed that he was not enjoying good reputation about his judicial honesty. This was confirmed, by District and Sessions Judge, Mianwali, by observing "had the reputation of being corrupt".

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Reporting officers did not have specific or concrete material before them to substantiate the adverse entries. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant fell victim to the grouse of the litigant public as well as of the Advocates as he sentenced the accused to long terms imprisonment with confiscation of goods, property including buses etc. and thus he became unpopular with the lawyers class as well as with the criminals. With regard to his adverse entry of 1980 by the District and Sessions Judge as well as by Deputy Commissioner, he has alleged malice against both of them.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the case of the appellant is not that of solitary adverse entry against him by one Reporting Officer or countersigning authority at their whim and fancy. According to the learned District Attorney in the case of the appellant there are a number of officers involved who considered his work and found him corrupt. 1t was pointed out that the opinion of the Deputy Com missioner was fully confirmed by the District and Sessions Judge in his independent report about the integrity of the appellant, therefore, it can be said with certitude that the appellant was not victim of one single individual but number of officers at different time considered him corrupt.

7. We have also perused the comments of the Reporting Officers and find that all of them have justified their observations and are unanimous about one fact that the appellant was enjoying reputation of being corrupt. We have looked into the earlier service record of the appellant and find that uptil 1978, he was doing well but unfortunately got consistent reports about his doubtful integrity both from the judicial as Well as administrative officers and right up to 1982, his honesty has been considered highly doubtful. We have also looked into the record to find if the Reporting Officers have nurtured any malice or grudge due to any earlier incident of service but failed to find any data on the record to convince us that the assessment made by them was either the result of ill‑will or the same was whimsical. In view of the above it is not possible for us to come to any other conclusion but to confirm the assessment so made by his superiors for the periods under appeals.

8. The result is we do not find any justification to expunge the `adverse entries so recorded against him for the years 1979 and 1980, and proceed to dismiss these appeals accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.