Expunction

Against the adverse remarks recorded by reporting and countersigning officers, the petitioner was at liberty to apply to the competent authority in terms of Chapter IV of the PER Guide for their expunction and it was inappropriate to examine whether the said officers had any tangible basis for recording such remarks as High Court's jurisdiction was barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Such adverse remarks in the A.C.R. were biased and did not reflect true and correct assessment made under Part-III of A.C.R. endorsed under column of countersigned by the competent authority

Even otherwise employee was not provided counselling during the year under report which was essential requirement of law

If an officer was to be given adverse remarks in his A.C.R., then the Reporting Officer was bound to issue prior written warning to him, which was not done in the present case

Reporting Officer in circu1 Lances had grossly violated the law

Adverse remarks in A.C.R. of employee were liable to be expunged, in circumstances.