1. ' JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LAGHARI (CHAIRMAN).---Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the ACRs for the period (1) 9-10-1996 to 31-12-1996, (2) 1-1-1997 to 23-9-1997 and (3) 5- 6-1998 to 31-12-1998.
2. ' In the ACR mentioned at serial No,1, the integrity of the officer concerned was rated below average and in the pen picture he was reported as "reputed to be corrupt".
3. ' In the ACR referred at serial No,2, the integrity of the appellant was rated below average, while in the pen picture it was observed "reputed to be corrupt officer".
4. ' In the ACR at serial No,3, the integrity of the appellant was rated to be poor and in the pen picture it was observed "integrity of above officer is under clouds".
5. ' The representation submitted by the appellant for expunction of the adverse remarks was rejected and such decision was communicated to the appellant vide Memo. Dated 31st May 2000.
6. ' Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Mr. Azizullah M. Memon, the then District and Sessions Judge, Sanghar, was hostile to the appellant and, therefore, has recorded the observations in a prejudicial manner. It is further argued that no counselling was made to the appellant and that the appellant was repeatedly deferred from being promoted and that he has now suffered a lot on account of these remarks in the ACRs, ' The learned A.A.-G. Has produced the service record of the Appellant to contend that subsequent to the ACRs as impugned in this appeal the conduct of the appellant has not improved.
7. ' We have considered the submissions and have also perused personal record of the appellant.
8. ' ACRs at serial Nos.1 and 2 were recorded by Mr. Azizullah M. Memon, the then District and Sessions Judge, wherein the integrity of the appellant was shown to be below average and it was specifically mentioned in the pen picture that he was reputed to be corrupt. The report contains that a counselling was also made to the appellant. But it seems that since there was no improvement in the conduct of the appellant, therefore, in the next .ACR for the period 1-1-1997 to 23-9-1997 also the general integrity of the appellant was rated to be below average.
9. ' The third ACR was recorded by Mr. Ali Nawaz Pirzada, the then District and Sessions Judge and in the said ACR the integrity of the appellant was rated as "poor". The comments in the pen picture recorded by Mr. Ali Nawaz Pirzada, the then District and Sessions Judge, were, almost similar in nature. In the circumstances it would transpire that the appellant was consistently reported to be corrupt by two different District and Sessions Judges, the argument that one of the reporting officers was hostile to the appellant loses its force.
10. ' The contention with regard to lack of provision of the counselling also does not seem to be valid as the observations in the ACR reveal that a proper counselling was provided. In order to satisfy ourselves, we have also perused the record of the appellant but deem it appropriate not to make any comment on the material available therein. However, from the above discussion we are convinced that the remarks recorded against the appellant are sound and sustainable, thus need not be interfered with.
11. ' Learned counsel for the appellant raised a faint hearted argument that since there was no complaint against the appellant made by any member of the bar or public, he could not be deemed to be a corrupt officer. Regrettably we are not impressed by this argument for the simple reason that had there been any written complaint against the officer concerned, he would have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Even otherwise, while recording the ACR it is not always necessary that the observations must be substantiated by documentary evidence.
12. ' The appeal being without force is, therefore, dismissed.