CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ (MEMBER-II).--- Malik Azhar-ul Haq, appellant has filed this appeal against the remarks made by the Inspection Judge, District Khanewal in his Annual Confidential Report for the period from 1-1-2008 to 8-4-2008.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that the impugned remarks that "some stinking news about integrity of the appellant have started pouring in, he should be careful (advisory)" are without any basis and material and in fact these are adverse remarks and cannot be treated as advisory remarks; that the appellant has an unblemished record which is clear from his past Annual Confidential Reports. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on "Noor Elahi v. Director of Civilian Personnel Rear Air Headquarters, Peshawar and 2 others" (1997 SCM R 1749) wherein, it is held that before passing any condemning remarks the officer shall be put under notice whereas, in the instant case, no notice was ever issued to the appellant; that in view of Articles 10-A and 14 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, these remarks cannot remain in the field as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as "Abul A'la Maudoodi v. Government of West Pakistan" (PLD 1964 SCM R 673) that the opinion must he based on certain material and in the instant case, no adverse material was available against the appellant, therefore, these remarks are liable to be expunged. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on "Ejaz Muhammad ,Khan v. Province of Punjab" (1983 PLC (C.S.) 303).
3. Whereas, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes this appeal on the grounds that the impugned remarks were advisory in nature and cannot be expunged, therefore, this appeal is not B maintainable. Further contends that no material is required in support of such remarks because it is only an advice to the concerned Officer to be careful in future. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on "Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi" (PLD 1986 SC 684), "Engineer Jameel Ahmed Malik v. Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board, Wah Cantt. Through Chairman and others" (2004 SCM R 164), "Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. Muhammad Jahangir Khan Goraya" (1999 SCM R 2117), "Shaukat Javed Farooq, Under Secretary Civil Secretariat, Lahore v. District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and others" (1999 SCM R 2141) and "Ch. Shabbir Hussain and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others" (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 191).
4 We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides.
5. In this case, the following remarks were recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant for the period from 1-1-2008 to 8-4-2008:--- "Some stinking news about his integrity have started pouring in, he should be careful (advisory)."
' We have repeatedly asked the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent to refer to any material to fortify these remarks which in his opinion are advisory but he has not been able to point out any such material. In our considered view these remarks cannot be treated as advisory. The word 'stinking' has been defined in Oxford dictionary as follows:-- "STINKING means, a strong offensive smell, very unpleasant contemptible or scandalous, extremely bad or fast conveying strong disapproval, very objectionable."
' We have also asked the learned counsel for the respondent to show any other adverse remarks ever recorded against the appellant in his career which he has not been able to point out. We have also gone through the previous Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant and have not been able to find any adverse remarks therein rather it is mentioned in appellant's previous Annual Confidential Report that he is an assets for the judiciary. The above remarks are not advisory but in fact are adverse remarks mentioned against the appellant without any basis or substance which is not warranted under the law. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable on facts. Moreover, every case has to be decided on its own facts, and circumstances, therefore, this appeal is allowed and the impugned remarks are hereby expunged: