2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN.

Through the instant Service Appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991, the appellant is seeking expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 1-1-2005 to 1-6-2005 against which his representation has also been rejected, vide letter No.664/RHC dated 22-5-2007, issued by the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the same Reporting Officer recorded ACR of the appellant for the period from 23-4-2004 to 31-12-2004 on 5-1-2005, which does not contain any adverse remarks. He further submits that the ACR in question relates to the period from 1-1-2005 to 1-6-2005, which was recorded on 11-10-2006 after more than one year and communicated to the appellant in the year 2007. He adds that previous ACRs of the appellant do not contain adverse remarks. He argued that competency or integrity cannot be imported over night, therefore, the adverse remarks are not sustainable under the law and are liable to be expunged. He next argued that the Reporting Officer has changed the entries in Part III and Part VI, which is not permitted under the law. He contends that during the period under report no complaint was filed by anybody qua work and conduct of the appellant and as such the adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer are not justified by any lawful reason. He further contended that the adverse remarks are the result of biased attitude of the Reporting Officer as the appellant belongs to Shia sect. He also contended that adverse remarks recorded in Part VI(b)(iii) and (c)(iii) are inconsistent with the assessment made in rest of the ACR. He lastly argued that the adverse remarks are not supported by any cogent material and being unjustified may be expunged. Reliance is placed on the cases of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad and another v. Zakaria Khan Babar (1995 SCMR 1036), Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore v. Muhammad Afzal Khan, Civil Judge Sahiwal and another (2007 SCMR 1251), and Akbar Ali v. Deputy Game Warden, Multan/Bahawalpur, Civil Divisions, Bahawalpur (1992 PLC (C.S.) 566).

3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the countersigning officer is not required to disclose his source of information to justify his adverse remarks recorded in ACR of the appellant. He has relied upon the case of Muhammad Yahya Khan Kulachi v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore (2011 SCMR 1381). He further submitted that the appellant's contention that the adverse remarks are the result of biased attitude is not supported by any solid and reasonable ground. He finally submitted that the Countersigning Authority has also agreed with the assessment of the Reporting Officer, hence, representation of the appellant has been rightly rejected by the competent authority.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. We have perused the previous and subsequent ACRs of the appellant. The previous ACR of the appellant for the period from 23-4-2004 to 31-12-2004 was also recorded by the same Reporting Officer. In the said ACR the appellant has been rated in column "b" in overall grading of Parts II, III and IV. In Part V (d) he has been reported to be useful for further retention in service. In Part VI(a)(iii) he is adjudged as "Equals the majority of the officers (Average)". He is also adjudged fit for promotion in his turn. In the column of "Integrity" he is reported as an honest judicial officer. He earned good remarks in overall grading of Part II regarding Personal Qualities. The Countersigning Officer has not differed with the assessment and opinion of the Reporting Officer. The reporting period of the above said ACR is spreading over more than eight (8) months. The Reporting Officer recorded the above said ACR on 5-1-2005 immediately after the reporting period. The appellant further worked for 5 months under the same Reporting Officer for the period from 1-1-2005 to 1-6-2005, which contains adverse remarks against the appellant. In subsequent ACR for the period from 8-6-2005 to 31-12-2005 the appellant has been rated in column "b" in overall grading and there is no adverse remark in it. However, the appellant earned adverse remarks in his ACRs for the period 1-1-2006 to 31-5-2006 and 5-6-2006 to 11-11-2006, from the Countersigning Officer. It is pertinent to mention here that S.A. No.17 of 2007 filed by the appellant against adverse remarks of the above said two ACRs, vide judgment of even date has been accepted by us and adverse remarks expunged. Thereafter, upto 31-12-2013 there stand no adverse remarks against the appellant. The appellant has earned very good remarks in his ACR for the period from 14-9-2013 to 31-12-203. In Pen Picture he has adjudged as competent, hard worker and gentle. In Part VI (a) Overall Grading he has been adjudged "Equalled by very few officers (very good)". The Countersigning Officer has not differed with the assessment made by the Reporting Officer.

6. We have noticed that the Reporting Officer has made cuttings in Part III of the ACR in question. The appellant was first rated in column "b" and then altered to "c" in two columns regarding Integrity. In the case of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad and another v. Zakaria Khan Babar (1995 SCMR 1036) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:

"The learned Tribunal has given very valid reasons for reaching the conclusion that the A.C.R. once written could not be changed by the same officer and if there was any change in his opinion that should be expressed by the same officer and if there was any change in his opinion that should be expressed in the subsequent A.C.R. of the concerned officer/official." It is not understandable as to how an officer who was adjudged Honest in previous ACR has turned to be Corrupt within few months without there being any complaint against him from any corner. It is not believable that anybody may turn from Honest to Corrupt overnight. Such a conduct develops with the passage of time. The appellant's previous and subsequent work and conduct being upto the mark, his ACR in question, which was recorded after more than one year casts a serious doubt qua its correctness. Even otherwise, in Part VI (a) Overall Grading the appellant has been adjudged as "Equals the majority of officers (Average). How a judicial officer who is adjudged as Equal the majority of officers can be treated not yet fit for promotion, Reported to be Corrupt and not useful for further retention in service. If such remarks are allowed to sustain in the ACR in question majority of the judicial officers are bound to be declared "Reported to be Corrupt". The adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer being inconsistent with his assessment made in rest of the ACR are liable to be expunged.

6. In view of above, we do not subscribe to the remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer in the impugned ACR and direct that these remarks be expunged from the record of the appellant. The instant appeal stands accepted. SA/9/PST Appeal accepted.