2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD MOSSA K. LAGHARI (CHAIRMAN)

This Service Appeal is directed against the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. of the Appellant for the period from 9-4-1996 to 31-12-1996 communicated to him vide Memo dated 20-2-2002.

2. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the remarks in the A.C.R. were communicated to the Appellant after lapse of about 4-1/2 years and the Authority failed to explain this delay, that the remarks were contrary to the law and the procedure, that those were not substantiated by any material.

3. Conversely, it was contended by learned A.A.G. that the remarks recorded in Pen Picture of the Appellant are self-explanatory and contain sufficient reasons. It was next contended that on his representation, the Appellant was given a proper hearing but since he could not satisfactorily rebut the remarks, his representation was rejected by the Chief Justice by assigning valid reasons.

4. We have considered the submissions put forward and have also perused the material placed on record by the Appellant.

5. While recording A.C.R. of the Appellant for the period from 9-4-1996 to 31-12-1996, learned Reporting Officer/District and Sessions Judge recorded following remarks in the Pen Picture of the Appellant:-- "(a) Though he has worked as P.S.I. as well as Assistant Public Attorney, yet his attitude towards the advocates and litigant public is discourteous. During his posting uptill inspection of his Court, I found that he has not disposed of even a single case on merits after recording of evidence. There are allegations of using of case property, i.e. motor car for which a fact-finding inquiry is pending before the undersigned as well as a Revision Petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Photostat copy of the order dated 21-11-1996. is enclosed herewith for ready reference. This Judicial Officer on the occasion of Eid refused to accept the surety offered by the Advocate during Court hours and left the Court premises at 2.30 p.m. without accepting or rejecting the surety which on the complaint of the counsel was accepted by me at 3.30 p.m. and release writ was also issued. The order of this Court and reply of the learned Magistrate are enclosed herewith. He is not enjoying. good reputation though except these complaints no other complaint has been received against him by me. He is plying in the hands of Court Moharirs and a general notice in this respect was issued to all the Judicial Magistrates, a copy of which is also enclosed herewith. (b) During the inspection the officer was informed regarding his weak points but, however, no improvement in his work and conduct has been noted by me:"

6. Perusal of the above observations abundantly indicates that the attitude of the Appellant towards advocates and litigant public was discourteous, he did not dispose of even a single case on merits, he was alleged to be illegally using a motor car, which was the case property. The Appellant on various occasions refused to pass orders on the surety documents and purposely left the Court premises during office hours without passing orders thereon. At least, on, one occasion on the complaint of the advocate, surety had to be accepted by the District and Sessions Judge himself and release writ was also issued by him. The Appellant was not enjoying good reputation, and was reportedly playing in the hands of Court Moharirs. The Pen Picture further re seals that the officer/Appellant was provided counselling inasmuch as during the inspection he was pointed out his weak points by the Reporting Officer and was advised to improve but with no result, as he did not respond to the counselling. 6-A. On his representation made before the Chief Justice, the Appellant was provided a personal hearing but he could not advance any plausible explanation of expunction of the remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the abovesaid period. His representations was, therefore, rejected.

7. After minutely going through the contents of the remarks recorded in the Pen Picture by the Reporting Officer and the order passed by the Chief Justice on the representation of the Appellant, we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the appeal was without merit. Very strong and valid reasons supported by specific instances regarding the conduct of the Appellant were assigned by the Reporting Officer. The Appellant was provided adequate opportunity to submit his explanation and to vindicate his position vis-a-vis the remarks, but he could not convince the Chief Justice as he could not put forward any thing in rebuttal, as such his representation was rightly rejected.

8. Regarding the delay in communication of the remarks, it may be observed that Judicial Officer cannot be equated with the ordinary civil servants so far as their conduct is concerned. The Reporting Officer as well as the Authority remain pre-occupied on account of enormous c judicial work and, therefore, mere delay in communications of the adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs. would not be a valid ground to expunge the same, notwithstanding the fact that the Reporting Officer in this particular case has recorded his remarks on 31-5-1997.

9. Needless to emphasize that the law on the point of delay in communicating the A.C.Rs. has almost been settled by the apex Court, and needs no further interpretation. Reference in this respect could be made to the verdict of the apex Court reported in 2004 PLC (C.S.) 236 wherein it was observed as under: "The first question for determination, therefore, is whether delay in writing A.C.Rs. and conveying the adverse remarks can vitiate the adverse remarks. The question is not res integra. A mater on this subject had came up before Full Bench of this Court for consideration and it was held that Instruction No.2 of the Establishment Manual Volum-I, which is pari materia with Instruction No.2 of the Punjab Esta Code Vol-I, is directory in nature. The case is reported as Government of Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 SC 684)" It was further observed: "The question was determined again in the case of Syed Tahir Hussain Sherazi v. The Governor of the Punjab (1990 SCMR 1510) and it was held that delay in recoding adverse remarks does not affect their efficacy or legality. The dictum was reiterated in Lahore High Court Lahore through Registrar v. K.M. Sohel (2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253) as well as an unreported judgment of this Court titled Ch. Muhammad Wakil v. Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Tribunal Lahore High Court (C.P. No.1170 of 1998) decided on 20-10-1999. In view of this settled legal position and well known pre-occupation of the District and Sessions Judges and Judges of the High Court with ever increasing judicial work we feel no hesitation in holding that delay in initiating A.C.Rs. of some of the Appellants and conveying adverse remarks to them is immaterial and cannot obliterate the adverse remarks in question. The contention that the time schedule has been prescribed so that remarks are based on performance of the officer during the relevant year and not any subsequent even stands repelled in view of the observations made in the case of Ehsanul Haq Sethi" ??????????? Above are the reasons for the short order dated 16-4-2005, whereby the appeal was dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-25/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.