' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The respondent, a member of the District Judiciary was awarded three adverse ACRs, for the period (i) 1-1-1998 to 31-12-1998 (ii) 1-1-1999 to 30-6-1999 and (iii) 1-1- 2000 to 5-7-2000 by the Reporting Officer who in the case of first two ACRs was District and Sessions Judge, Jhang while in the case of third ACR, he was Sessions Judge/Judge Accountability Court, Bahawalpur. The said ACRs bearing out endorsement by the countersigning officer, not totally agreeing with the Reporting Officer. The incumbent felt aggrieved of the aforesaid adverse ACRs approached the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore for the expunction of the same through three different Service Appeals bearing Nos.83 to 85 of 2001. All the three appeals were allowed, through, a common judgment, by the Tribunal after finding that he did not deserve at all the adverse remarks. The appellant, Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore has filed three separate Civil Petitions Nos.1483-L to 1485-L of 2003.All the three petitions were fixed before this Court for hearing on 8-12-2003 and out of three, one relating to the ACR for the period pertaining to the year 1-1-1998 to 31-12-1998 was msmissed while in two petitions i,e, 1484-L and 1485-L of 2003, leave to appeal was granted on the ground that "the judgment of the Tribunal prima facie appears to be based on certain assumptions which are not sustainable in law" and which are now before us for adjudication.
2. Learned A.A.-G. Has contended that the remarks of the Reporting Officer are not to be likely interfered with by the Tribunal as it is subjective evaluation on the overall performance, closely watched by the Reporting Officer and when the countersigning authority has not specifically disagreed with him.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, in addition to his other contentions, has raised preliminary objection, as noted in the leave granting order, the question of limitation by stating that the petitions, prior to leave granting order, were hopelessly time-barred. OA merits, he has submitted that as evident from the impugned judgment passed on the basis of record of the case that the Reporting Officer was biased having a grievance against the incumbent who (the respondent), after allotment of official accommodation pressing for its vacation, which was in occupation of the Reporting Officer already transferred from the said station, annoyed him and resulted in the impugned ACRs, The one (ACR) written by another Reporting Officer was on account of communication of the adverse remarks to the respondent, which came to his (Reporting Officer) notice, prior to the writing of the ACR for the period i,e, 1-1-2000 to 5-7-2000, the said Reporting Officer had given the incumbent good remarks, prior to the period i,e, 1-1-2000, i,e, for the remaining six months of the year 1999.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent on the question of limitation was that since the copy of the judgment had been sent by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Tribunal to the appellant on 4-3-2003 and which was received by him on the same day and by counting the period from that date, the filing of petition/appeal became time-barred which position qua the receipt of the copy on 4-3-2003 was not denied by the appellant and it was contended that for filing of the petition/appeal before this Court other documents, apart from the judgment e.g. The grounds of appeals are required to be filed and it was the only impugned judgment which was sent to the appellant not accompanied by other necessary documents and obtaining certified copies of those documents delayed the matter and after getting certified copies of the documents along with the impugned judgment, the petition was filed within time. We inspected the file of this Court and found that the judgment annexed with the grounds/memorandum of petition/appeals bearing the dates as described by the appellant and counting as such the appeal not seems to be time-barred and particularly when three petitions/appeals have been filed against a common judgment and which also requires three separate certified copies of the judgment and the three certified copies of the judgment appears to have not been sent with the covering letter to the appellant. Hence this objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is overruled.
5. One of the petitions pertaining to the period i,e, 1-1-1998 to 31-12-1998 filed by the present appellant was dismissed by this Court on the date when leave to appeal was granted in the instant petition as no substance was found in that petition.
6. Though the remarks about the performance of an incumbent may be a subjective evaluation on the basis of objective criteria where substitution for an opinion of the competent authority is generally avoided unless the same is tainted with mala fide, partiality and bias but B which factors are found in the instant case for the reasons, referred to above, as annoyance of the Reporting Officer over the insistence of incumbent for the vacation of the official accommodation allotted to him (incumbent) did exist. The case Zahoor Hussain v. Principal of Government College, Sahiwal and others 2005 SCM R 1035 may be referred to. The reasons advanced for the adverse ACRs given by the other Reporting Officer seems to have weight as prior to the ACR in question for a period of the half of the year, good ACR had been given by the same Reporting Officer. It was stated at the bar that the respondent having a long tenure of service about 23 years, had not been given any adverse remarks except the one in question. We do not find the judgment of the Tribunal to be lacking in any aspect as sufficient reasons have been given for the interference by expunging the ACRs and we see no justification to differ with the impugned judgment. Resultantly these appeals have no merit and the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.