1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (MEMBER).‑‑‑The following adverse remarks on the work and conduct of the appellant recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1986 were conveyed to him by the Registrar, Lahore High Court vide D.O. Letter dated 14‑9‑1987:‑‑ "PART III "

2. Attitude towards Islamic Ideology Below average PART V Pen‑picture Reported to be corrupt and fond of liquor. Counseling: Yes. No effect. Assessment of performance: Not satisfactory PART VI Overall Grading: Meets bare minimum standards (Below average). Fitness for promotion: Not yet fit for promotion. Integrity: Reported to be corrupt. PART VII REMARKS OF THE COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER There is a complaint under process against him. He should be kept under strict watch. The appellant submitted a representation for expunction of the adverse remarks which was rejected by the High Court. He then filed the instant appeal praying that the impugned remarks may be expunged from his ACR for the period 1‑1‑1986 to 31‑12‑1986.

2. Learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal submitted that the remarks regarding the appellant's attitude towards Islamic ideology were basis. The Reporting Officer had never issued any warning to the appellant about his attitude towards Islamic ideology. It was further contended that there was no material available with the Reporting officer to justify his remarks that the appellant was reported to be corrupt and fond of liquor. According to the learned counsel, no such complaint was made against the appellant during the period in question. The Reporting Officer acted whimsically in recording these remarks. It was also denied that the Reporting Officer rendered any counseling to the appellant on any point whatsoever. It was submitted that it was imperative for the Reporting Officer to have indicated the aspect on which he had done the counseling but he gave no such indication. The learned counsel also assailed the assessment of appellant's performance as `Not satisfactory' by contending that it was contrary to the record. It was pointed out that the District Judge had himself in one of the quarterly reports acknowledged the laudable efforts made by the appellant for disposal of the cases. Exception was also taken by the appellant to the over all Grading in Part VI as `Below Average'. It was asserted that this was not in keeping with the overall Grading awarded in Parts II, III and IV. With respect to the remarks `Not yet fit for promotion', the submission made was that it was as arbitrary opinion of the Reporting Officer not supported by anything on the record. ,

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned remarks on the ground that the Reporting Officer being the Supervisory and the Appellate Authority of the appellant had ample opportunities to have first‑hand information about the work, conduct, performance and integrity of the appellant and, therefore, his evaluation reflected in the impugned remarks was unexceptionable, moreso for the reason that the appellant had not made any allegation of malice or ill‑will against the Reporting Officer.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. We find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no material available with the Reporting Officer to justify his remarks about the appellant that he was reported to be corrupt and fond of liquor. The Reporting Officer was the appellate and supervisory authority of the appellant and in that capacity, he must have received reports/complaints about the character and conduct of the appellant from different sources of which he may not have kept any record and, therefore, he could not be asked to produce the material on the basis of which he recorded the impugned remarks. We are satisfied that the remarks in question were based on the personal knowledge of the Reporting Officer who, it is not denied, had no ill‑will or malice against the appellant. We have also noted that the Reporting officer even gave counseling to the appellant though it had no effect. The appellant denied having received any counseling but we have no reason to disbelieve the Reporting Officer who has specifically stated in the relevant column of the ACR that he gave counseling (obviously with reference to the appellant's reputation of being corrupt and his addiction to liquor) but with no effect. The impugned remark relating to the appellant's attitude towards Islamic Ideology is also not open to any exception as it was amply justified from what the Reporting Officer had said about his reputation of corruption and fondness for liquor which remarks we have upheld. As regards the `not satisfactory' remark about the appellant's performance, suffice it to observe that the Reporting Officer was the best judge of the appellant's work and performance. No legitimate exception can, therefore, be taken to his assessment particularly when the appellant had not alleged any mala fides against him. Similarly, the impugned remark `Not vet fit for promotion' is also unexceptionable when examined in the context of overall report specially the adverse remarks regarding his integrity and moral character. Overall grading of the appellant under Part VI of the ACR, however, cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it ran contrary to the entries in the corresponding columns of Parts II, III and IV. In all these three parts, his overall grading was `average'. Needless to observe that when making general assessment under Part VI, the overall gradings in Parts II, III and IV have to be kept in view.

5. Upshot o f the above discussion is that the adverse entry `Below Average' relating to the overall grading under Part VI of the ACR for the year 1986 is ordered to be expunged whereas all other adverse remarks/entries impugned in this appeal are maintained with the result that appeal qua them is, dismissed. A.A./5/PSJST Order accordingly.