' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI (CHAIRMAN).--- By this judgment we propose to dispose of above- noted three Service Appeals as all of them have been filed by the one and the same appellant i.e. Qaiser Ali Khan. In appeal No.3 of 2000 the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.Rs. Of the appellant for the period 1-1-1995 to 10-4-1995, 19-4-1995 to 31-12-1995 and 1-1-1996 to 4-8-1996, in Appeal No.38 of 2002 adverse remarks for the period 15-4-1998 to 30-9-1998 and 1-10-1998 to 31-12-1998 and in Appeal No.26 of 2003 adverse remarks for the period 27-8-1999 to 31-12-1999, 10-3-2000 to 13-7-2000 and 14-7-2000 to 31-12-2000 have been assailed.
2. In Parts II, III, IV and VI of A.C.R. For the period 1-1-1995 to 10-4-1995 rating "Below Average" was given, while in Part V remarks "he should be watched carefully" and "enjoying bad reputation" and in Part VI remarks, "Not yet fit for promotion" were recorded. In the A.C.R. For the period 19-4-1995 to 31-12-1995 in Part III rating "Below Average", in Part V remarks, "His overall performance is not upto the mark, there are repeated complaints against him of corruptions from Senior Member of Bar and the Public. Some of Senior Judges have also explained about his behaviour and judicial orders passed by him". In Part VI, "Not yet fit for promotion" were recorded while in the A.C.R. For 1-1-1996 to 4-8-1996 in Parts II and III rating "Below Average" were given, in Part IV rating "Poor" was recorded, in Part V remarks, "His integrity is visibly doubtful, there were complaints against him from members of the Bar particularly regarding integrity". And in Part VI "Not yet fit for promotion" were recorded.
' In Part V of the A.C.R for the period from 15-4-1995 to 30-9-1998 remarks "He does not enjoy good reputation. He is by nature a corrupt and crook person and is not fit to be retained in judiciary", and in Part VI "Unlikely to progress further" were given. In the A.C.R. For the period 1-10-1998 to 31-12-1998 Part V remarks, "He is not efficient and honest judicial officer. His judgments and orders are not well-versed upto the mark. Even he use to destroy the case property of pending cases and in two case pertaining to Narcotic Substances Act, viz. Special Case No.268 of 1997 and Special Case No.279 of 1997 he in collusion with the S.H.O. Of Police Station Satellite Town Mirpurkhas destroyed 331 Kgs. By burning though cases are pending and such enquiry is also pending before Honourable High Court."
' In A.C.R. For the period of 27-8-1999 to 31-12-1999 in Part V adverse remarks, "He remained under suspension during the period of evaluation report" and in Part VI, "Not yet fit for promotion" were recorded, while in A.C.R. For the period 10-3-2000 to 13-7-2000 remarks, "Reputation of corrupt officer enjoyed" while in the A.C.R. For 14-7-2000 to 31-12-2000 remarks, "He enjoys the reputation for being persistently corrupt and is inefficient too" were recorded.
3. Being aggrieved by the above adverse remarks, the appellant submitted representations which were rejected by the "Authority" viz, the Chief Justice.
4. We have heard the appellant and learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh.
5. It was contended by the appellant that the adverse remarks were communicated after considerable delay, that the adverse remarks were not substantiated by quoting any instances or giving justification and that no counseling was made to the appellant before recording the adverse remarks under challenge. Thus, it was argued that the same were liable to be quashed.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced before us and examined the material placed on the record.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant with regard to delay in the communication of A.C.R. Does not have much force as the same already stands decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, in various pronouncements. Reference in this respect could conveniently be made to the verdict of the apex Court reported in Ch. Shabbir Hussain v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2004 PLC (C.S.) 236 wherein it was observed as under:-- "The first question for determination, therefore, is whether delay in writing A.C.Rs. And conveying the adverse remarks can vitiate the adverse remarks. The question is not res Integra. A matter on this subject had come up before Full Bench of this Court for consideration and it was held that Instruction No.2 of the Establishment Manual Vol. I, which is pari materia with Instruction No.2 of the Punjab Esta Code Vol.!, is directory in nature. The case is reported as Government of Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi PLD SC 684."
' It was further observed:-- "The question was determined again in the case of Syed Tahir Hussain Sherazi v. The Governor of the Punjab 1990 SCMR 1510 and it was held that delay in recording adverse remarks V does not affect their efficacy or legality. The dictum was reiterated in Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. K.M. Sohel 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253 as well as an unreported judgment of this Court titled Ch. Muhammad Vakil v. Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Tribunal, Lahore High Court (C. P. No.1170 of 1998) decided on 20-10-1999. In view of this settled legal position and well-known pre-occupation of the District and Sessions Judges and Judges of the High Court with ever increasing judicial work we feel no hesitation in holding that delay in initiating A.C.Rs. Of some of the appellants and conveying adverse remarks to them is immaterial and cannot obliterate the adverse remarks in question. The contention that the time schedule has been prescribed so that remarks are based on performance of the officer during the relevant year and not any subsequent even stands repelled in view of the observations made in the case of Ehsanul Haq Sethi."
8. From the perusal of A.C.Rs. Of the appellants, it seems that for various periods adverse remarks were consistently recorded in the A.C.Rs. Of the appellant. It appears that consistent view has been taken about the shabby integrity of the appellant, as such there is no justification to disbelieve the observations made by the Reporting Officer. In view of his conduct/performance, an opinion as appearing from the adverse remarks under challenge was formed by the Reporting Officer.
Evidently there were adequate reasons to form such opinion. Very serious allegations have been levelled against the appellant and the appellant has not been able to establish any malice, or motive on the part of the Reporting Officers to record such remarks.
9. So far as the contention of the appellant that no counselling was made before recording the adverse remarks, suffice it to say that in Part V(b) of the A.C.Rs. In question it was specifically mentioned by the Reporting Officer that despite counselling there was no improvement.
' There is no justifiable reason to take a view other than to accept the same to be correct.
10. The contention that no specific instances were quoted by the Reporting Officer, is also devoid of force as from the adverse remarks quoted above, it is clear that instances such as destroying the case property in collusion with police officials in the pending cases and complaints made by the Senior Members of the Bar and the Public as well as the Judges were quoted by the Reporting Officer.
11. The representations submitted by the appellant was given due and proper consideration by the learned Chief Justice. Besides, he was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing while disposing of his representations. After considering his representations and hearing him in person, the same were rejected. The order passed by the learned Chief Justice was just, equitable and legally valid. It does not call for interference of any sort.
12. As a result of above discussion, the appeals, being devoid of merits, are dismissed.
' Above are the reasons for short order passed on 5-9-2006.