' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- This is an appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 seeking expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the appellant for the period from 1-1-1999 to 2-12-1999 against which representation of the appellant has also been dismissed, vide this Court's Memo. No,1073/RHC dated 30-7-2002.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant having been inducted in the subordinate judiciary on 4-4-1986 performed his duties to the best of his ability and there were no adverse remarks against him during 12 years prior to the said adverse remarks; that thereafter also the appellant earned good ACRs; that there was no concrete material or a specific complaint on the basis of which such adverse remarks were recorded against the appellant; and that the counter signing officer has not signed in the boxes meant for counter signatures in Part VI of the ACR.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant's representation was duly considered and dismissed, vide order dated 30-7-2002; that the appellant has not raised any allegation of mala fide or personal grudge against the Reporting Officer for recording adverse remarks against him; and that in the cases of judicial officers no concrete information is essential to be placed on record and general reputation of the officer is to be taken into consideration.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. We have called for C.R. dossiers of the judicial officer, which show that he had earned good reports from 1988 to 1996. However, his reports for 1997 and 1998 are average. It is noted that during the said two years for the period from 3-7-1997 to 31-12-1997 and 1-1-1998 to 31-12-1998 Reporting Officer was Mian Muhammad Jahangir, District and Sessions Judge and he is the same Reporting Officer who has given adverse remarks against the appellant in the year 1999. It is, therefore, apparent from the record that the appellant did not earn adverse remarks for quite a considerable period but his service record took a nose dive and he was considered from good to average from 1997 and 1999. Instead of improving himself the appellant got adverse remarks from the same Reporting Officer, who had earlier given him average remarks, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any malice or grudge against the appellant in the mind of the Reporting Officer. As for contention of the appellant that there was no material or complaint before the Reporting Officer on the basis of which adverse remarks were recorded against him, suffice it to observe that it is not necessary that there must be some tangible material or complaint in writing to furnish ground for such remarks. The adverse remarks qua integrity of an officer are made on the basis of his general reputation by the Reporting Officer who has supervisory authority over him to watch his work and conduct closely. Therefore, the remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer/ Countersigning Officer are generally based on their having credible information and personal observations. Reliance is placed on the case of Ch. Shabbir Hussain and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court and others (PLD 2004 SC 191).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, we find that the appellant has failed to satisfy us that adverse remarks recorded against him were on the basis of mala fide or grudge on the part of the Reporting Officer. We find no force in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.