' Appellant Ikramullah Khan, Ex-Judicial Magistrate, Lakki Marwat has preferred the present appeal to call in question the order dated 22-5-1997 of respondent No.1 i.e. Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby he communicated adverse remarks recorded against the appellant by respondent No.3 i.e. District and Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat, for the period from 11-6-1996 to 31- 12-1996 and order dated 12-7-1997 of respondent No.2 i.e. Members of the Administrative Committee, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby representation made by the appellant was rejected.
2. Shortly narrated the facts are, that after qualifying the competitive examination of N.-W.F.P.
Public Service Commission, appellant was appointed as Extra-Assistant Commissioner in the year, 1998, He was then posted in the various stations in N.-W.F.P. In view of the separation of judiciary from executive in the year, 1996, services of the appellant was placed at the disposal of the Peshawar High Court on 21-3-1996. At the relevant time, the appellant was serving as Judicial Magistrate, Laki Marwat, when adverse remarks in question were recorded in his Annual Confidential Report by respondent No.3.
3. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Saadullah Khan Marwat, Advocate contended that the appellant was performing his duties to the best of his ability and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and no complaint whatsoever was received against him, justifying recording of adverse remarks. The learned counsel added the performance of the appellant was appreciated by the bar and he was awarded with certificates of commendation and admiration by the Controlling Authority which clearly reflects on his conduct and performance.
4. Mr. Niaz Muhammad Khan, Additional Member Inspector Team-II, Peshawar High Court, on the other hand, contended that appeal was barred by time and that the ACR was correctly recorded keeping in view the conduct and performance of the appellant.
5. In his Annual Confidential Report for the period from 11-6-1996 to 31-12-1996, following adverse remarks have been recorded by the Reporting Officer:--
(1) Intelligence......................... Below average.
(2) Confidence and will power................... Below average.
(3) Appearance and bearing................... Below average.
(4) Integrity (a) General)
(b) Intellectual........ Below average.
(5) Acceptance of responsibility................ Below average.
(6) Ability to produce constructive Ideas.......................... Below average.
(7) Foresight.................. Below average.
(8) Initiative and drive........... Below average.
(9) Judgment.............. Below average.
(10) Financial responsibility............. Below average.
(11) Relations with (a) superiors. Below average.
(b) Colleagues. Below average.
(c) Subordinates. Below average.
(12) Behaviour with public............ Below average.
(13) Power of expression.............. Below average.
(a) Written.......... Below average.
(b) Oral.......... Below average.
(14) Knowledge of work.......... Below average.
(15) Analytical ability......... Below average.
(16) Supervision and guidance........... Below average.
(17) Ability to take decision....Below average.
(18) Quality of work........... Below average.
"He is an average officer. However has not got a good reputation as a judicial Magistrate, required, to serve long in the judiciary.
' Advised to improve his general reputation and behaviour with the members of the bar but useless.
' He is unfit for judicial service, so not recommended for further posting as Judicial Magistrate in future.
' Meets bare minimum standards.......... Below average.
' Not yet fit for promotion."
6. The adverse remarks in question recorded by respondent No.3 were duly communicated to the appellant. The appellant made representation to respondent No.4 seeking expunction of the said'remarks which was declined by order dated 12-7-1997. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that there was no material on the file to substantiate the allegations and justify recoding of adverse remarks, carry no weight. No material is required for recording adverse remarks in the ACR. The appellant has not been able to establish malice, bias or prejudice on the part of the Reporting Officer, which, is absolutely necessary for expunction of adverse remarks.
7. The superior officers like the District Judges are the only officers who can accurately assess the work and conduct of the subordinate Judge/Magistrate serving under him. He is the best Judge of his work, conduct, work and character. The basis of his opinion mainly depends on his observations, the general reputation and such other material which may have been brought to his notice.
8. As regards the question of counselling before recording adverse remarks, suffice it to say that the requirement is directory for want of a panel consequence, therefore, adverse remarks recorded sans counselling are valid. Reference in this connection can be made to case titled Chaudhary Shabir Hussain and others appellant v. Registrar, Lahore High Court respondent PLD 2004 SC 191).
' Pursuant to above, finding no substance in this appeal, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.