Javed Iqbal, J.--The above captioned appeals with leave of the Court are directed against judgment dated 10.1.2005 whereby the appeals preferred on behalf of appellant have been dismissed are being disposed of by means of this judgment as common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
2. Leave to appeal was granted by means of order dated 7.4.2006 which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we grant leave to appeal to consider, inter alia, whether the objective criteria was followed, in recording the adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs, of the petitioner, by the Countersigning Officer".
3. "Precisely stated the facts of the case are that when the appellant was posted as Civil Judge 1st Class at Multan, the Countersigning Officer, the Hon'ble Judge of this Court, recorded the following adverse remarks in the appellant's ACRs for the periods from 2.7.97 to 31.12.97 and 10.3.97 to 1.7.97:-- "Reported to be corrupt."
The aforenoted adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letters dated 4.9.98.
The appellant filed two separate representations for expunction of the said remarks but the same were rejected vide decisions dated 25.6.2001". The appellant being aggrieved approached the learned Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Judicial Tribunal') and assailed the order passed by the Competent Authority qud expunction of adverse remarks which was also dismissed hence these appeals.
4. Mian Allah Nawaz, learned ASC entered appearance on behalf of appellant and urged vehemently that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been dilated upon properly resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention it is argued that all the points raised before learned Judicial Tribunal have not been dilated upon and decided in accordance 'with law and besides that documentary evidence has been ignored without any rhyme and reason. Mian Allah Nawaz, learned ASC also argued that the judgment as relied upon by the learned Judicial Tribunal being distinguishable cannot be made applicable to these appeals. It is also contended that, the opinion recorded by the learned countersigning authority is without any base as no material whatsoever was available inferring that appellant was corrupt and such remarks could not have been given in vacuum without having sufficient material which was totally lacking in this case. It is also argued that no complainant whatsoever was either made by the Bar Council or any Advocate. The allegations of corruption were never alleged even by any litigant. It is' next contended that the personal knowledge of countersigning authority would be an alien concept to service laws and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside.
5. Mr. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, learned Additional Advocate General entered appearance alongwith the Register, learned Lahore High Court and strenuously controverted the view point as canvassed at bar by Mian Allah Nawaz, learned ASC on behalf of appellant and supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein. It is next contended that the countersigning authority being well-conversant with the performance, efficiency and reputation of the appellant could have recorded adverse remarks which by no stretch of imagination can be objected. The learned Additional Advocate General has also referred the case titled Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore v. Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal, Civil Judge 1st Class, Okara (C.A.169/2003) wherein it has been held in a categoric manner that no restriction can be imposed on the countersigning authority regarding the assessm ent concerning any judicial officer. It is also argued that in absence of any mala fide or ill will the genuineness of adverse remarks cannot be questioned.
6. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties, perused the record of the case vigilantly and also examined the judgment impugned. The pivotal question which needs determination would be as to whether it is obligatory on the countersigning authority to give reasoning while recording adverse remarks in the ACR or otherwise? The dictum laid down in case of Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal (supra) is a complete answer to the above formulated question, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "We have heard parties learned counsel and also gone through the various components of the ACR Dossier copy of which is available on record. Its each page has got key note instructions which are required to be followed by the Reporting Officer as well as Countersigning Officer while recording their remarks. As far as Part VL of the ACR Dossier is concerned it has also got such like instructions careful perusal of which indicates that neither the Reporting Officer nor the Countersigning Officer is required to give reasons while recording the remarks whereas the Key note instructions appended with Part VII of the Dossier ACR indicates that some reasons are required to be assigned while recording remarks either by the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer. As far as the argument of the learned counsel relating to good performance of the appellant as Judicial Officer is concerned according to the contents of the inspection report, reference of which has been made by him during his arguments, suffice to say that only one report is not to be taken into consideration as the opinion is to be formed in favour or against an officer on the basis of over all conduct or performance, therefore, for such reason the Countersigning officer was not obliged to record reasons for recording adverse remarks against the appellant, It is to be noted that a Countersigning Officer being a Judge of the High Court always remains cognizant with the performance of the judicial Officer being his appellate and revisional authority against the judicial order passed by him from time to time, therefore, he had a better chance to assess the performance as well as conduct of an officer which he can undertake independently without making reference to be inspection note prepared by another Countersigning Officer. To substantiate these findings, reference may be made to the judgment in the case of Ch. Shabbir Hussain (supra) relevant portion whereof is reproduced below:-- "The superior Officers like the District Judge and the Chief Justice are the only officers who can accurately assess the work and conduct of the subordinate judge serving under them. They are the best Judges of his work, conduct and character. The basis of their opinion can be very extensive, depending on their own observation, the general reputation and such other material which may have been brought to their notice. All this material does not generally form part of the record. The opinion is formed by the superior officers on the basis of conglomeration of events too minute to be noticed individually and recorded separately. The total impact of such events, however, brings into focus a clear image of the persons before them. The superior officers cannot therefore be asked to produce material on which they based their opinion. Nor should there be any corpus on the superior officers to express themselves freely while recording their opinion concerning their subordinates. Thus for the foregoing reasons, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside."
7. In another case titled Shabbir Hussain v. Lahore High Court (2004 PLC (CS) 236) while dilating upon a similar case it was decided that it is not mandatory for the countersigning authority to have recorded reasoning for his assessm ent or any adverse remarks.
8. We have also examined the ACR Dossier of the appellant which makes it abundant clear that pursuant to key note instructions for recording ACR the countersigning authority is not bound to give reasoning for his assessm ent. No such restriction has ever been laid down in any law that countersigning authority must give reasoning for his assessment. In our view it is not an inadvertent omission but on the contrary it is a deliberate omission and the logic behind it, is that no restriction should be imposed on the countersigning authority enabling him to make a transparent, independent and impartial assessment and B give his opinion qua efficiency, performance, integrity and reputation of a Judicial Officer. It is worth mentioning that adverse remarks were recorded by a learned Judge of the High Court which cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that no material whatsoever was available for recording such adverse remarks. The learned Judge of High Court is always well-conversant with the conduct, performance, reputation and integrity of a Judicial Officer and he could have various resources including judgment of a Judicial Officer to make an independent assessment without any restriction and as may be deemed fit and proper. It is not necessary that every-one must know about such resources or the material considered by learned Judge of High Court while making such assessm ent By no stretch of imagination it can be imagined that learned Judge of High Court was not impartial or not dispassionate in evaluating the performance of a Judicial Officer while recording his ACRs, No malafide whatsoever has been alleged against the learned Judge of Lahore High Court. It is well settled by now that "where Reporting Officer or Countersigning Officer had not personal' motive or bias and they had evaluated performance of civil servant on the basis of their personal observation information, same could not be struck down merely on ground that they were not in a position to prove that adverse remarks recorded in A.C.R. were true." (F.Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary 1994 SCMR 722). It was further held that "in our view, the approach should be that if no allegation is made against the Reporting or Countersigning Officer about mala fides and their own reputation is not clouded, their evaluation as to the performance of their subordinates is to be accepted". (F. Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary 1994 SCMR 722, Lahore High Court v. Muhammad Jahangir Khan Goraya (1999 SCMR 2117). While dilating upon a similar question it was held in case of Shabbir Hussain v. Registrar Lahore High Court (PLD 2004 SC 191) as follows:-- "The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties have received our anxious consideration. However, before proceeding to determine the questions involved in these appeals we deem it necessary to observe that although all the civil servants are bound to be honest having unblemished integrity, the Judicial Officers are supposed to excel in this trait of character in view of the sacred and sensitive nature of their duties and the pivotal position which justice occupies in Islam according to the following verse of the Holy Qur'an:-- "0' You who believe, the maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah's sake though it may be against our ownselves or your parents or near relations, be he rich or poor, Allah is most competent to deal with them both, therefore, do not follow your low desires lest you deviate, and if you swerve or turn aside then Allah is aware of what you do." (Sura 4 Verse 135). Islam also enjoins that those who perform the functions of Judges must not only possess profound knowledge and deep insight but also be men of integrity and capable of holding the scales of justice even under all circumstances. We, therefore, cannot help remarking that Judicial Officers are expected to guard their reputation jealously and the Reporting Officer/ Countersigning Officers are obliged to assess their conduct after careful consideration and without being led away by any prejudice or bias."
9. It was further held that "the position that emerges from the judgment is that an impartial and unambiguous evaluation based on credible information, personal observation and reports of the Inspection Judges falls within the ambit of an objective evaluation. In other words, an evaluation can be termed as objective if it is unambiguous, impartial, unbiased, result of careful consideration and is based on credible information, personal observation of the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer and reports of the Inspection Judges and it is not necessary that it must be based on tangible material like complaints in writ, resolutions of Bar Associations, transfer applications and assets etc. The adverse remarks with regard to integrity of an officer are made on the basis of his reputation and if the same are required to be supported with tangible material and instances of corruption then there will be ho difference between an A.C.R. and an enquiry report under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. In the present appeals the adverse remarks were either recorded by the Inspection Judges of the Lahore High Court as Reporting Officer or endorsed by them as Countersigning Officers and in some cases the Reporting Officer are District and Sessions Judges. The Reporting Officers/Countersigning-Officers had scrutinized the work of the appellants and closely watched their conduct as Inspection Judges, Appellate Authorities and Judicial Heads of the Districts where they were posted, therefore, it goes without saying that the adverse remarks are based on credible information, personal observation and the process of inspection. The adverse remarks relate to the integrity of the appellants and are neither vague nor sketchy and there is also nothing on the record to suggest even remotely that the integrity and reputation of the Reporting Officers/Countersigning Officers was not above board and they had recorded the adverse remarks on account of bias, prejudice, ill-will or rancour against the appellants. It was held in F. Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary of N.W.F.P. (1994 SCMR 722) that where no allegation is made against the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Officer about their mala fides and their own reputation is not clouded, their evaluation as to the performance of their subordinates should be accepted. "(Shabbir Hussain v. Registrar Lahore High Court PLD 2004 SC 191).
10.The verdict of learned Judicial Tribunal is strictly in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in cases titled Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Saeed Zafar (1999 SCMR 1587), Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary; Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others (1996 SCMR 256) Ch. Shabbir Hussain and others v.
Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (PLD 2004 SC 191).
11.The upshot of the above discussion is that since it is not a legal mandatory requirement to assign reasoning while recording adverse remarks no case is made out and accordingly the above captioned appeals are dismissed.