1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RANA BHAGWAN DAS (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL)‑‑‑Appellant Judicial Officer has by way of this appeal under section 4 of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 impugned the adverse remarks communicated to him by respondent No. 1 for the year 1989 recorded by the former District and Sessions Judge, Thatta. The remarks communicated to the appellant under the heading Part V "Pen Picture" read as under: "There had been numerous anonymous applications against him regarding his work, conduct and integrity. He needs to be watched constantly." In the same part under the heading "Counselling" following remarks were communicated to the appellant: "His disposal has been low throughout the year. He has been advised to improve the disposal and esteem in the eyes of litigants. "

2. Appellant being aggrieved by these communications represented to the High Court for expunction and the former Chief Justice being authorised by other Judges of this Court after providing full opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant partly accepted, the representation and partly dismissed the same. While the remarks under the head "Pen‑picture" were maintained, the remarks under the head "Counselling" were expunged. Appellant being still aggrieved from the remarks as aforesaid has filed this appeal with a prayer that these may be expunged.

3. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 i.e. Registrar, High Court of Sindh, it was explained that the remarks conveyed to the appellant were given to him by the District and Sessions Judge, Thatta, under whom he was working as Senior Civil Judge, during the relevant period. The respondent further stated that the remarks were given by the learned District Judge on the basis of complaints received by him from the litigant public.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and a careful consideration of the issue raised at the Bar, we find that the remarks conveyed to the appellant under the head "Pen‑picture" only reflect the impression gathered by the learned District Judge on receipt of numerous anonymous applications against his work, conduct and integrity. It is difficult to say whether appellant would not like that his work, conduct and integrity be watched at all. It is equally not possible to say whether the remarks offered by the Reporting Officer were wrong, incorrect or the outcome of some personal vengeance. Apparently the appellant has not alleged any malice or ill‑motive against 'the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Authority.

5. We are least impressed by the contention that the appellant ought to have been counselled before making the aforesaid observations. Appellant as a Judicial Officer being entrusted with the sacred and onerous duties of administering justice undoubtedly he is expected to behave like an ideal Judicial Officer. In the given circumstances no exception can be taken to the observations made in relation to his work, conduct and integrity. In our view the remarks conveyed to him by themselves may not by themselves be termed as adverse comments. These may at best be treated in the nature of a mark of caution to which, the appellant should have no grievance.

6. Needless to observe despite the aforesaid remarks, appellant has been promoted to a higher position and his learned counsel stated at the Bar that he has earned good reports throughout after 1989. In ease, it is so appellant should have the least grievance against the remarks conveyed to him.

7. For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, appeal' is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. A.A./17/Sr.K Appeal dismissed.