Adverse Remarks

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.

Appellant worked under nine reporting officers before the passing of adverse remarks, but he never earned any such remarks, which fact was also admitted by the authorities

Contention of the appellant was that the adverse remarks were passed against him owing to bias and mala fide of the reporting officer by holding the appellant responsible for the strike observed by the Bar Association against the said reporting officer

Validity

Reporting officer had recorded adverse remarks against the appellant to take revenge of his defamation caused by the Members of Bar Association

Nothing was on record that the appellant was ever called for or anything written was sent to him for counseling

No material was available before the reporting officer at the time of passing adverse remarks

Reply given by the department was submitted under the signatures of the same reporting officer, who did not bother to answer the allegation levelled against him by the appellant and his evasive reply was amounted to admission

Tribunal expunged the adverse remarks and accepted the appeal accordingly.

Appellant, a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, earned adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report touching his integrity

Authority while dispensing with the regular inquiry, issued show-cause notice to the appellant and after considering his reply as unsatisfactory, after providing him an opportunity of personal hearing, dismissed him from service vide impugned notification

Validity

Reporting Officer and Countersigning Officer of Annual Confidential Report had evaluated appellant as corrupt and dishonest officer

Authority, before passing impugned order against the appellant, had duly complied with the relevant provisions of law; and the principle of fair and due process of law for safe administration of justice

Appellant could not be said to have been condemned unheard, or that he was deprived of his right to explain his position

Appellant had not raised any plea of bias, prejudice and malice qua the Authority

Evaluation by the Authority, was based on credible material, information and personal observation, free of any bias

Case of appellant having been fairly and equitably dealt with by the Authority, did not warrant any interference by the Tribunal, in circumstances.

Pro forma promotion of the appellant was declined by the Authority on the ground that he earned adverse remarks in his ACRs

Validity

Appellant filed representation for grant of pro forma promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 7-9-2006 which was declined by the Authority on 10-6-2013

Decision of the Authority was conveyed to the appellant on 11-6-2013 and he filed Service Appeal within 30 days from the date of decision of his representation

Civil servant had choice either to file appeal immediately on the expiry of 90 days from the date of filing of departmental appeal or he could have waited for the decision of same and file Service Appeal within 30 days thereof

Appellant waited for decision of his representation for seven years and when his representation was declined he filed the present appeal within 30 days

Present appeal was within time

Appellant earned adverse remarks in his three ACRs but same were treated as advisory in nature in his representation

Representation of the appellant was rejected on the ground that his performance was found "below average"

Nothing remained adverse against the appellant barring his promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge

Appellant could not be deprived of his right of promotion from the date when he became eligible for the same

Rejection of representation for pro forma promotion was not justified

Authority was directed to grant pro forma promotion to the appellant as Additional District and Sessions Judge from the date when his immediate junior was promoted with all the consequential back benefits

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Adverse remarks recorded in three ACRs were challenged by the appellant through representations which were dismissed by the Authority

Appeals against the adverse marks were dismissed by Service Tribunal

Service Tribunal could not again examine the legality of the adverse remarks recorded in the said three ACRs as same had attained finality

Allegations levelled against the appellant were supported by documents

No regular inquiry was required before initiating penal action against the appellant

Authority had rightly dispensed with conducting of regular inquiry in the matter of appellant's dismissal from service

Appellant had earned three consecutive adverse ACRs touching his integrity

Appellant was found guilty of having persistent reputation of being corrupt and was liable for imposition of major penalty

Appellant was a judicial officer and his earning three consecutive adverse ACRs was a valid ground to hold him guilty of having reputation of being corrupt

Such conduct of appellant was unbecoming of a judicial officer

Authority had rightly imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant

Impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity or jurisdictional defect

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Judicial Officer did not raise any allegation of mala fide or personal grudge against the Reporting Officer for recording of adverse remarks

Contention of the Judicial Officer was that the adverse remarks were recorded without any tangible material or complaint on the basis of which adverse remarks were recorded

Validity

It was not necessary that there must be some tangible material or complaint in writing to furnish ground for such remarks

Adverse remarks qua integrity of an officer were made by the Reporting Officer, who had supervisory authority over him to watch his work and conduct closely

Remarks Recorded by the Reporting Officer/Countersigning Officer were generally based on their having credible information and personal observations

Adverse remarks were not recorded on the basis of mala fide or grudge on the part of the Reporting Officer

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellant while posted as Judicial Officer allowed an application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. for the acquittal of accused; complainant being dissatisfied filed an appeal in the High Court wherein appellant was summoned and forced to tender his resignation

Appellant under protest tendered his resignation and before its acceptance through notification dated 16-3-1999 submitted application on 15-3-1999 for withdrawal of his resignation

Appellant submitted his representation against the notification of acceptance of resignation, which was rejected

Adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant after the acceptance of his resignation

Appellants submitted representations for expunction of these adverse remarks, which were rejected

Appellant filed appeals against the adverse remarks and notification of acceptance of his resignation, which were dismissed, therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court, which set aside the notification of acceptance of resignation of the appellant and directed that Service Appeals of the appellant be deemed to be pending before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which would be disposed of on merits

Contentions of the appellant were that he had 14 years unblemished career before the adverse remarks; that Reporting Officers had evaluated his performance as a good, honest officer fit for promotion on his turn in the relevant columns of Part-VI; that Countersigning Officer was inspired of the appellant's forced resignation and that appellant was not administered any warning or counseling by the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer with regard to his integrity

Validity

Adverse remarks were recorded by the Countersigning Officers in the year 2000 i.e. after forced resignation of the appellant

Both the Countersigning Officers prima facie were inspired by the appellant's resignation

Appellant throughout his 14 years service record as judicial officer earned good reports from his Reporting/Countersigning Officers

Presumptions were always positive unless proved otherwise and a person was presumed to be innocent until proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt

In the absence of any plausible reason the adverse remarks of the Countersigning Officers had resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant

Remarks given by the Countersigning Officers suffered from vagueness

Appeals of the appellant were accepted in circumstances.

Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report of employee, who at the relevant time was serving as Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, were communicated to him after those were countersigned by the then Chief Justice of High Court

Scope

Civil servant feeling aggrieved thereof, preferred, representation before Administration Committee of the High Court which was rejected

Validity

Plea of employee that being inducted into Judicial Service in the year, 1995 if at all there was any complaint of his behaviour towards the superiors and general public, same could have been cured through counselling, had no force, as counselling was directory and not mandatory

Even otherwise, District and Sessions Judge and the Chief Justice, were the officers who could accurately assess the work and conduct of the subordinate Judicial Officer serving under them; they were the best judges of his work, conduct and character, which opinion could be very extensive, depending on their own observation, the general reputation and such other material, which could have been brought in the notice of the employee, and generally did not form part of record

Evaluation of the performance of a subordinate by a Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer, was a matter of subjective assessment and not an objective evaluation

Tribunal or the court, could not substitute the view recorded by the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer, nor it would interfere with the above evaluation

Such was, however, subject to exceptions, firstly, when the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer herself, did not enjoy good reputation and mala fide was alleged against him with full particular and secondly, when there had been gross violation of instructions, which resulted in miscarriage of justice

In the present case, nothing had been alleged in the grounds of appeal, nor any such allegation against the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer had been argued

No ground for interference in the impugned decision of Administration Committee, of the High Court having been made out, appeal was dismissed.

Adverse entries recorded in the ACRs of the employee for the relevant year by the Countersigning Authority, had been challenged by the employee in appeal

Entry in ACR being the employee `average officer' was not adverse

However entries "besides employee was counselled to guard against his arrogant behaviour" was by the Countersigning Authority, which happened to be the Administration Committee of the High Court, comprising the Chief Justice and senior most Judges

When employee had been counselled, then, no reason was for him not to mould himself and act in a manner as he was required as a judicial officer

Prior to the impugned entries, the comments furnished by Chief Justice would show that there had been adversary remarks in ACRs of the employee

However since appeal of the employee against his dismissal from service had been dismissed, appeal against alleged adverse entries was also dismissed.

Reporting Officer graded the appellant as "very good" in almost all the columns in Part-II (Personal Qualities), III (Attitudes) and IV (Proficiency in job); in section (a) of Part-VI, pertaining to "overall grading", appellant was graded as `very good' and in section (b), "Fit for accelerated promotion" and in pen-picture, Reporting Officer described appellant as the hardworking officer with forceful ideas and cooperation who was always effective with updated information pertaining to his Sectoral Projects

Countersigning Officer, however, altered the two gradings each by two steps in Part-VI, overall grading in section (a) of Part-VI was downgraded from "very good" to `average' and in section (b) from "fit for accelerated promotion" to "not yet fit for promotion" Countersigning Officer, however, made no other change in the A.C.R. of the appellant

Appellant had filed appeal against order of Countersigning Officer alleging that downgrading done by the Countersigning Officer was unwarranted inasmuch as that he had drastically differed with the assessment of the Reporting Officer without giving reason therefor; and that contrary to the rules, no counselling was given to the appellant to improve his performance

Countersigning Officer having given no justification of his disagreement with the Reporting Officer in Part-VI, it could be concluded that downgrading carried out by him was arbitrary and based on whim

Validity

Case of appellant being strong on merits, delay, if any, in filing appeal, was condoned

Downgrading in Part-VI (b) (III) of the A.C.R. "i.e. not yet fit for promotion" was expunged

Downgrading in Part-VI(a)(iv) i.e. "Equals the majority of officers (Average)" in line with the principle of consistency, was also expunged as its retention would be inconsistent with the entries in the rest of the A.C.R.

Appellant serving as D.S.P. was communicated adverse remarks in his Performance Evaluation Report recorded by his first countersigning officer

Said countersigning officer had described grading of appellant as unsatisfactory (poor); and had also remarked with regard to fitness for promotion as "unlikely to progress further"; and had described him as "corrupt to the core"

District Attorney had admitted that report in question was for a. period which being less than three months, said adverse` remarks should have been ignored by the Department as required by instructions about writing of A.C.Rs., issued vide letter No. S(R)-3542 S&GAD, dated 12-2-1968

Performance Evaluation Report for the period in question, could not be legally recorded and same could not be considered to the disadvantage of appellant

Adverse remarks, were liable to be expunged, in circumstances

Appellate Authority should have ignored the limitation while deciding Departmental appeal because there could be no limitation for challenging illegal and void order

Impugned order was set aside and adverse remarks recorded in A.C.R. of the appellant for relevant period were expunged.

Employee was unaware of reasons which prompted Reporting Officer to make adverse comments on the work of employee while he was working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)

Employee who had a service of about twenty nine years, was never communicated any adverse remarks in his A.C.R. and present was the only A.C.R. for the period August, 2001 to 30-6-2002 wherein adverse remarks were given

Previously, employee worked as Director Inspection and Audit, but his work was found satisfactory and no adverse remarks were reported in his A.C.R.

Reporting Officer had failed to state specifically the defects in A.C.R. before bringing same to the notice of employee

Countersigning Officer who incidentally was Appellate Authority also, while signing relevant column; had simply agreed with Reporting Officer and admitted that he had never seen the work of employee directly

Such admission on the part of, Countersigning Officer had created serious doubts and proved lack of reasonability and fair play in awarding adverse remarks

Natural justice demanded that while giving adverse remarks in A.C.R. it was imperative upon Countersigning Officer to have, either conducted an inquiry to know the facts or evaluate performance of employee and give him opportunity of hearing to clarify his position, but nothing favouring justice was done and defective finding of Reporting Officer was countersigned

Employee, in circumstances was condemned unheard

Reporting Officer had also violated the instructions contained in "A Grade to performance evaluation"

No justification, in circumstances existed in making impugned adverse remarks against employee in his A.C.R. for relevant year

Adverse remarks were ordered to be expunged, 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.

Adverse remarks in ACR for the years 1993 to 1994 passed against civil servant were conveyed to civil servant in year 1996 after a period of three years in violation of instructions regarding Annual Confidential Reports which had caused prejudice to civil servant

Relevant instructions serving. as guidelines for performance evaluation of civil servant which were mandatory in nature and had status of Rules, were to be strictly complied with

Even otherwise no specific instance had been quoted as a basis for the adverse remarks against civil servant

Adverse remarks against civil servant, were expunged, in circumstances.

­A.C.Rs. of civil servant pertaining to a point of time both before and after said few months for which adverse entries had been made, did not contain any adverse entries

Authority could not bring any material on which disputed adverse entries might have been based

Even upon examination of impugned A.C.R. of civil servant, it had been found that Reporting Officer had over all graded civil servant to be average in Parts II, III & IV

While drawing pen picture, only observation was "nothing special"

In Part VI(a)(iii) of A.C.R. civil servant had been graded as an average officer while in Part VI(b)(ii) he had been reported to be fit for promotion on his turn

Said impugned entry was rather inconsistent with other entries in Part VI

Civil servant having earned good reports before as well as for period subsequent to disputed period, Reporting Officer should have stated with particularity as to how all of a sudden there was a change in the conduct and behaviour of civil servant, supported by sufficient material, but that had not been done by Reporting Officer which had resulted in grave prejudice to civil servant

Adverse remarks made in A.C.R. of civil servant for disputed period from 1-1-1994 to 6-7-1994, were expunged, in circumstances.

Such remarks incorporated by Authority in A.C.R. of civil servant pertained to year 2000 whereas in ACRs of civil servant from 1993 up to 1999, his performance had been shown to be excellent

Civil servant in said A.C.Rs. had been declared honest and entitled to further promotion

In year 2000 for the first time his performance was, rated as average and he was not held entitled to promotion

Adverse remarks written by Authority had not been conveyed to civil servant

Conduct of Authority was violative of instructions issued by Government vide Notification No. S & GAD/A-4(67) VI/87-dated 30-1-1988 whereby Reporting Officer was bound to convey adverse remarks, within a period of thirty days to civil servant against whom same were'passed

­Purpose for conveying adverse remarks was that person against whom adverse remarks were reported should know those remarks so that he could improve his conduct or submit any explanation relating to his past conduct which gave rise to a complaint against him to the concerned Authority

In Instruction No.40 of said instructions issued vide Notification No. S & GAD/A-4(67) VI/87 dated 30-1-1988, it had been laid down that it adverse remarks were not communicated to concerned civil servant, then such remarks should be ignored for the purpose of promotion and premature retirement

Evidence on record had proved that civil servant and Authority which had passed adverse remarks against him were not on good terms

­Adverse remarks against civil servant, in circumstances, were intentional and with mala fide intention and were the result of bias and hostility of Authority towards civil servant

Said remarks could not be made basis for refusing civil servant his further promotion

Adverse "remarks incorporated in A.C.R. of civil servant for the year 2000, were expunged, in circumstances.

Civil servant invariably had earned good reports and Reporting Officer had appraised the working of civil servant accurately and had given him invariably "A" reports and he had been described as an honest officer

Countersigning Officer for the first time had pointed out slackness of civil servant in effectively controlling the establishment

Such remarks against civil servant, which were appended by Countersigning Officer after one year and nine months were absolutely unjustified as he had not been able to record any instance of alleged laxity of control on the part of civil servant

Had the Countersigning Officer recorded the remarks soon after the period reported upon in accordance with Instructions on the subject, it would have certainly carried weight

Record of adverse remarks after one year and nine months had made situation otherwise

Possibility of Countersigning Officer having forgotten real position existed

Even otherwise an officer who had ever been rendering commendable performance, could not become slack all of a sudden in a period of six months

In absence of any justification for adverse remarks, they were ordered to be expunged.

Civil servant promoted as Joint Secretary in B-20 in 1994 was given adverse remarks in year 1995 to the effect "not yet fit for promotion" and was immediately transferred from Establishment Division to Office of Attorney-General and was declared "below average" in column of "emotional stability "

Civil servant, during his entire service career, had never received any advice, warning or counselling and throughout his service career right from post of Section Officer to his promotion as Joint Secretary remained good in his service record

Promotion of civil servant from post of Section Officer to Joint Secretary in B-20 was due to his dedication, devotion and sincerity to his job

Said adverse remarks were given to civil servant simply on difference of opinion on certain matters

Difference of opinion was blessing but same was proved to be detrimental to civil servant by giving him adverse remarks

In absence of any allegation of misconduct or rude behaviour of civil servant, adverse remarks against him, were not justified

Adverse remarks against civil servant ordered to be expunged.

A.C.Rs. showed the civil servant not only graded as "average" officer, but also was recorded "not yet fit for promotion"

Civil servant was serving under same Reporting Officer in same capacity

Report for the year 1991 recorded in September, 1992 stated that civil servant was considered by the same officer to be "fit for promotion" with almost "very good" grading in performance evaluation report, but just after three months, he was downgraded as an "average" and "not fit for promotion"

Such 100 % reversal was not possible within a period of three months only in the performance and output of civil servant

Since remaining three A.C.Rs. of civil servant were more or less verbatim copies of A.C.R. of 1992, those reports were also not true evaluation of performance of civil servant

Evaluation of performance having been made by a colourable exercise of discretion, same could not be upheld

Adverse remarks which proved to be biased and unjustified, were expunged and civil servant was upgraded as "good" and "fit for promotion".

Civil servant who was appointed Section Officer, was promoted as Deputy Secretary and then as Joint Secretary in B-20 and during twenty-four years of his service right from his appointment to his promotion, not a single adverse remark had ever been given to him and he also never received any advice, warning or counselling during that period

Promotion to B-20 from post of Section Officer was possible only by dedication, devotion and sincerity to his job

Service record of civil servant throughout his service career reportedly was 'good'

Adverse remarks in question against civil servant were due to difference of opinion which arose between him and Reporting Officer on some official issue, but nothing was on record that civil servant had misconducted himself or used bad or impolite language during discussion on that issue

Adverse remarks given to civil servant simply on difference of opinion on certain issue, were not justified, reasonable and legally valid

Adverse remarks recorded against civil servant were ordered to be expunged.

On filing writ petition, High Court requisitioned relevant file from Department concerned ordering Secretary, Services and General Administration Department to submit said file

Said file having not been presented on date of hearing of case, non-bail able warrant for arrest of civil servant, who was held responsible for non-compliance of order of Court, was issued

Civil servant gave cogent reason for said non-compliance of order and Court ordered to submit file on next date of hearing, which order was complied with

Allegation of disobedience of order of Court and warrant of arrest directed by High Court, being adverse remarks had been sought to be expunged by civil servant

Civil servant had not committed any disobedience, firstly because order to produce file in Court was not directed to him personally and secondly for the reason that relevant file at relevant time was with higher Authority to which direction to produce file in High Court was sent

Remarks recorded by High Court against civil servant, were not justified and High Court was also not justified in issuing order for arrest of civil servant

Adverse remarks against civil servant were expunged, in circumstances.

Adverse remarks viz. "below average and "not a willing worker" were recorded in Annual Confidential Report of civil servant for relevant year without bringing to the notice of civil servant at proper time that his performance lacked something which he might remove before the year closed up

Before giving adverse entries in- Annual Confidential Report, counseling at proper time was essential

No document having been appended by Authority showing that such requirement was adequately met with, adverse remarks against civil servant were untenable

In absence of such a timely warning, civil servant could not be condemned at the fag-end of the year concerned.

Adverse remarks were recorded against civil servant on the basis of complaint which ultimately fizzled out resulting in his exoneration

Subject-matter of complaint should not be recorded in A.C.R. until it was finally decided and in that case too, only the result of inquiry had to be appended to the personal record of civil servant

Such procedure was not followed inasmuch as Reporting Officer hurriedly felt influenced by the factum of complaint which later on turned out to be false

Reporting Officer was required to have waited for the result of inquiry which he was supposed to have made in that context

Hasty conclusion against a subordinate should be avoided

Adverse remarks could not be sustained on that ground.

Departmental appeal against adverse remarks although was not dismissed on point of limitation, yet appeal before Service Tribunal was dismissed on point of limitation

Validity

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Service Tribunal was justified to dismiss appeal on ground of limitation when Competent Authority did not dismiss the same on said ground but dismissed the same on merit.

Departmental appeal addressed to Appellate Authority was returned to civil servant with remarks that same was not maintainable

Appeal filed before Service Tribunal was dismissed as being time-barred

Leave to appeal was granted to consider civil servant's contention that even if it was found that appeal before Appellate Authority was not competent it was valid ground for condoning delay in filing appeal before Service Tribunal both under Ss. 5 & 14, Limitation Act, 1908.

Reporting as well as countersigning officer in all columns had graded civil servant as "average" and had found him fit for promotion, but in "pen-picture" he had recorded "not obedient" "not cooperative" and civil servant had challenged such adverse remarks

Reporting Officer had found civil servant fit for promotion and while determining that factum, overall conduct of a civil servant and general performance about .his behaviour and work was to be looked into, and a disobedient and non-cooperative worker could hardly be considered fit for promotion

Remarks of countersigning officer to the effect that "he needs improvement" were of advisory nature and there was no end for improvement as an efficient worker was expected to be "more and most" efficient

Remarks recorded by reporting officer in column pen-picture "not obedient"; "not cooperative"; were uncalled for and were liable to be expunged

No counselling or warning with regard to assessment of performance of civil servant having ever been given to him, remarks communicated to civil servant could not at all be treated as adverse

In some of columns in A.C.R. of civil servant he had been graded as "good" and overall grading was "average" and he was found fit for promotion and an average officer by both reporting and countersigning officer

No adverse inference should have been drawn from remarks contained in A.C.R. against civil servant and same would not be used against him and his A.C.R. should be treated as "average" in circumstances.

Inquiry against civil servant was, however, decided in his favour in that penalty of censure awarded to him was set aside in appeal by Government

Civil servant was thus, totally exonerated from those charges which were recorded in his Annual Confidential Report

Adverse remarks recorded in civil servant's Annual Confidential Report were ordered to be expunged.

Annual Confidential Report of 1981 was ordered to be communicated in 1984 and was actually communicated on 2-1-1985, while the normal period for communication of such adverse remarks is thirty days

Countersigning officer, however, having nullified the remarks of Reporting Officer and that of first countersigning officer at earlier stage, but subsequently realizing that such remarks had been made in accordance with the directive of Authority, changed them accordingly

Such remarks were thus not the remarks of Reporting Officer but those of the Authority itself-Adverse remarks were thus communicated to civil servant after a delay of three years

Such delay was not fatal to the validity of adverse remarks in circumstances.

Expunction-Reporting Officer throughout treated appellant, District Education Officer, as'Good'and'Better than majority of Officers'and declared her fit for promotion in her turn, but Countersigning Officer declared her work'Unsatisfactory'and observed that'she was unlikely to progress further'

No justification given by him for adverse remarks as recorded except by simply saying that this was his impression

Appellant otherwise having a clean record and her report for preceding year was'A'and'AI'which was agreed to by same Countersigning Officer in all respects

Appellant alleged that since she failed to oblige a public representative, he poisoned Countersigning Officer against her due to which appellant was transferred twice but her transfer was got cancelled by intervention of some other public representatives

Element of mala fides and malice of Countersigning Officer existing against appellant

Countersigning Officer failed to disclose source of his opinion both in respect of adverse remarks as well as written objection filed before Tribunal

Held, impugned adverse remarks were uncalled for, against facts and result of malice-Appellant, who throughout her service career was efficient, honest and upright, could not indulge in corruption at a juncture when she knew fully well that one adverse report was sufficient to end her career

Adverse remarks expunged in circumstances.

Reporting officer recording performance of appellant police officer as substandard and his integrity as controversial but failing to substantiate his remarks

Neither quoted instances justifying said remarks in case Diary nor issued appellant warnings from time to time

Appellant was dismissed from service on charge of corruption pertaining to period of report but he was re-instated by Service Tribunal and this had not been controverted by respondent departmental officers

Held, since remarks regarding corruption were subject-matter of an enquiry which resulted in his dismissal and subsequently re-instatement by Tribunal, said remarks should have been washed off by Department itself

Adverse remarks expunged in circumstances.

Remarks "requires improvement in technical knowledge by refresher course", held, were advisory in nature and not adverse.

Adverse remarks given in column of 'General Remarks', besides being vague and meaningless, contradictory to remarks recorded in a column of body of Report-Adverse remarks expunged.

Adverse remarks - Judicial Officers-Civil Judge in 7th year of service given remarks by Chief Justice as countersigning authority- "This Officer has all along had bad reputation-Even now a District Judge states that he is clever, resourceful and fit for diplomatic job-rate him an average Officer - He should be careful"-Reported in very first year of service as "an officer of average integrity"-Reported in second year of service "Integrity below average, indiscreet, tactless and of doubtful integrity"-Similar remarks repeated in third year of Service leading to departmental enquiry for disciplinary action - Departmental enquiry dropped for want of sufficient evidence and no further action taken but adverse remarks remained on record and not expunged Earning just average remarks in fourth, fifth and sixth year of service-Remarks by Chief Justice for 7th year of service impugned and sought to be expunged before service Tribunal - Plea that Chief Justice should have rated objectively on basis of facts and figures and a casual remark of bad reputation should not have been made basis for spoiling career of a Judicial Officer-Plea rejected-Held: There was, in circumstances, sufficient basis for impugned remarks that appellant had all along a bad reputation Further held : Superior Officers like District Judge and Chief justice are the only Officers who can accurately assess work and conduct of subordinate Judge serving under them-Basis for their opinion can be very extensive depending upon their own observation, general reputation and such other material which may have been brought to their notice and such material does not generally form part of record-Opinion is formed by Superior Officers on basis of conglomeration of events too minute to be noticed individually and recorded separately-Total impact of such events, however, brings into focus a clear image of the person before them - Superior Officers cannot, therefore, be asked to produce material forming basis of their opinion nor should there be any curb on them in expressing themselves freely while recording their opinion concerning their subordinates-If aggrieved sub-ordinate feels that remarks were wholly unjustified and alleges any mala fide he can challenge exercise of Superior's discretion if backed by firm and cogent reasons-It should be entirely left to the Chief Justice being administrative head of Judiciary to keep out Officers who in his opinion have earned bad reputation of integrity and his discretion while'considering cases for promotions should be left unfettered-Held further : Looking at A.C.Rs. of appellant throughout his career one is left to wonder, how an officer of that reputation completed two years probation period and was allowed to continue to dispense justice and occupying sacred chair -Expunction of impugned remarks refused by Tribunal-Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S. 4.

S. 4-Adverse remarks-Assessment of work and conduct by reporting and countersigning officers fully justified-Service Tribunal in circumstances, declining to interfere with impugned adverse remarks.

Adverse remarks-Challenged on grounds of malice-Reporting officer giving detailed grounds to substantiate such remarks-Nothing on record to show that Reporting Officer was inimical-Remarks countersigned by next higher authority

Interference in circumstances, refused by service tribunal-Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Based upon facts and figures-Service Tribunal satisfied about justification of impugned remarks - Appeal for expunction, in circumstances, dismissed

Punjab Service 4Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

- Adverse remarks-Author should be in a position to justify-Countersigning officer disagreeing with good report of initiating officer-Remarks of countersigning officer not based on facts and fully disproved on record in respect of one remark-Reward prior to such adverse remarks and thereafter speaking well of official-Impugned adverse remarks conveyed after a lapse of 3 years-Adverse remarks, in circumstances, expunged by Service Tribunal - Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Adverse remarks-Representation against adverse remarks and comments thereon of Reporting Officer should be in language temperate vis-a-vis superiors-Adverse remarks recorded by Superintendent of Police in A. C. R. of Police Inspector based upon certain charges and allegation-Such charges disproved in Inquiry and findings of such enquiry examined and upheld by D. I.-G. of Police-Reporting Officer in his comments on representation for expunction of adverse remarks expressing surprise and making strong observations against findings of D. I.-G. of Police recorded on enquiry report

Such comments taken note of by Service Tribunal and described as (i) contrary to elementary principle in discipline force of Police that order of superior is always accepted as correct, (ii) contrary to Government instructions that language used not only in representations but also in comments thereon should always be temperate vis-a-vis superiors and (iii) disclosing some sort of bias of Reporting officer against appellant as he was not prepared to accept of his superior-Tribunal, in circumstances, accepting appeal and directing expunction of impugned adverse remarks-Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), 9. 4.

Excise and Taxation Inspector giving report that "he detected only two cases throughout the year and those too jointly with the Police"

Detecting 34 cases after such remarks conveyed to him

Service Tribunal reaching conclusion that if appellant had made efforts during period of assessment he would have succeeded the way he succeeded at the later stage

Tribunal, in circumstances, declining to interfere with assessment of Reporting Officer

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.

Plea that annual confidential reports intended for determining fitness for promotion are ancillary to consideration for fitness or otherwise of a person hence no appeal lies against adverse remarks in view of proviso (b)

Plea repelled.

Non-communication of-Does riot render them of no consequence-Retirement under M.L.R. 114 challenged on plea that adverse remarks taken into consideration while passing impugned retirement order had not been communicated contrary to Government instructions

Record otherwise adverse to considerable extent

Plea rejected

Interference refused by Service Tribunal-Punjab Service Tribunals Act (Iii of 1974), S. 4.

Have status of rules made under Civil Servants Act, 1973 and determine live of terms and conditions of service Recording of remarks though within exclusive competence of superior officers yet such record not immune from review or reconsideration and adverse remarks being reviewable under rules, appeal to Service Tribunal, held, competent in appropriate cases.

Adverse remarks-Remarks for 3 consecutive years recorded by same Officer-Communicated jointly in one lot-Reports prior to 3 years recorded by same officer fairly good-Proposal of transfer by same Officer pressed during period of adverse remarks-Inference of ill-will could he drawn on part of reporting Officer in such circumstances-Adverse remarks, in circumstances, expunged by Service Tribunal

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

- Adverse remarks-Not supported by any instance-Conduct of official otherwise appreciated by commendation certificates by superior authorities including reporting officer-Remarks, in circumstances; held, unjustified and expunged-Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

- Adverse remarks-Successively for 3 years by same officer Irregular-Communication of such remarks in one lot-Further irregularity-Ill-will on part of recording officer could also be inferred-Remarks, in circumstances, expunged by Service Tribunal Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.