' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR J./Member--- Through this composite judgment we propose to decide Service Appeals Nos.22 and 23 of 2005 as they involve identical questions of law and facts.
Service Appeal No,22 of 2005
2. In the ACR of the appellant pertaining to the period 1-1-2002 to 19-9-2002 in Part-VII the learned Countersigning Officer recorded adverse remarks as "Reported to be corrupt". These remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 3-6-2003 who filed representation against the same for expunging of adverse remarks before the respondent which was rejected vide order dated 14-7-2005. Hence this appeal order Section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Service Tribunal Act, 1991.
Service Appeal No,23 of 2005
3. In the ACR of the appellant pertaining to the period 19-9-2002 to 31-12-2002 in Parts-V and VI the learned Reporting Officer recorded adverse remarks as under;--- "PART-V:--
(a) Pen-picture.- -- He needs guidance and strict control.
PART-VI:-
(c) Integrity:- ' Reported to be corrupt."
' These remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 5-6-2003 who filed representation against the same for expunging of adverse remarks before the respondent which was rejected vide order dated. 14-7-2005. Hence this appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Service Tribunal Act, 1991.
4. Contention of the appellant is that the learned Reporting Officer/District and Sessions Judge Kasur for the period w.e.f, 1-1-2002 to 19-9-2002 evaluated his performance as 'good' in the relevant columns of Part-II and Part-III (personal qualities), Part-IV (proficiency in job), Part-V (pen-picture) and that in Part-VI the learned Reporting Officer assessed the appellant as hardworking and equals the majority of officers (average) and useful for further retention in service, fit for promotion in his turn and an honest officer whereas disagreeing with the Reporting Officer learned Countersigning Officer in Part-VII of the ACR assessed the appellant as reported to be corrupt; that the impugned remarks recorded by the learned Countersigning Officer on 20-5-2003 about integrity of the appellant are unfounded and without reasons; that the learned Reporting Officer in the ACR for the period w.e.f, 19-9-2002 to 31-12-2002 (Service Appeal No,23 of 2005) passed the impugned remarks 'he needs guidance and strict control' which are advisory in nature; that the adverse remarks 'reported to be corrupt' are inconsistent to the appellant's assessment made by the same learned Reporting. Officer in the other parts of the ACR i.e, useful for further retention in service, fit for promotion in his turn and equal to the majority of officers. It is further argued by the appellant that vide letter dated 11-12-2002 he had reported misconduct of his colleague Mr.Faiz Ahmed Ranjha learned Civil Judge to the then learned District and Sessions Judge Kasur; that the then learned District and Sessions Judge Kasur, prima facie, formulating the opinion that appellant himself was guilty of gross misconduct, proposed regular inquiry into the matter and submitted a report to the respondent vide letter dated 15-1-2003 for necessary action; that the matter was placed before the learned Authority; that the learned Authority ordered initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 against the appellant; that the learned District and Sessions Judge Kasur while recording the appellant's ACR and the learned Countersigning Officer while recording the impugned remarks on the above said ACRs seemed to be inspired by the controversy between the appellant and his above named colleague; that the impugned remarks against integrity of the appellant in the absence of any plausible material or reason have caused serious prejudice to the appellant and are liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent contends that in the absence of any established mala fide qua the learned Reporting and Countersigning Officers appellant has no case to question the credibility of the assessment; that the judicial officers remain under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court viz-a-viz their judicial work and conduct in terms of Article 203 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that the impugned evaluation in the ACRs is based on credible information and personal observation of the learned Reporting Officer and learned Countersigning Officer and it is not necessary that it must be based on tangible material. Places reliance upon (i) Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 SC 684) and (ii) Shabbir Hussain v. Registrar Lahore High Court (PLD 2004 SC 191).
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.
7. Record reveals that appellant was appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate vide notification 13-11-2000 and posted as such at Pattoki District Kasur. The appellant assumed the charge of the post on 30-11-2000. The learned District and Sessions Judge Kasur while reporting the appellant's first ACR w.e.f, 1-1-2002 to 19-9-2002 evaluated his performance as 'good' in the relevant columns of Part-II and Part-III (personal qualities), Part-IV (proficiency in job), Part-V (pen-picture) and in Part-VI the learned Reporting Officer assessed the appellant as hardworking and useful for further retention in service and in Part-VI also assessed the appellant's overall grading as equal to the majority of officers, fit for promotion in his turn and honest. It is apparent on the record that the clouds of miseries started hovering over the appellant in the month of December, 2002 when he reported a matter of misconduct of his colleague namely Mr.Faiz Ahmed Ranjha Civil Judge Pattoki.
During the whole year of 2002 there was no instance of appellant's corruption. There is nothing on the record to show that appellant was ever administered any warning or counseling by the learned Reporting Officer or learned Countersigning Officer regarding his reputation of being a corrupt officer. Before recording of impugned remarks the appellant had unblemished judicial career and earned good report from his officers. Record also reveals that during the period of ACR w.e.f, 19-9- 2002 to 31-12-2002 in Part-III i.e, column of integrity the learned Reporting Officer assessed him as an honest and straight forward officer however later on by cutting his signatures from column-B put his signatures in column-C i.e, below average. Cuttings and alterations make the veracity of impugned assessm ent highly A doubtful. We have also noticed residuals of a white paper in Column No,3 relating to integrity in Part-III of the ACR. Faced with the situation learned counsel for the respondent submits that a chit of plain paper was placed on the said portion by the office while presenting the said ACR to the learned Countersigning. Officer meaning thereby the aforenoted cuttings/alterations were concealed from the learned Countersigning Officer. It prima facie reflects malice of the officer violative to Instruction No,45 of the Instructions about ACR issued by the Government which reads below:--- "45. Under no circumstances should any entry in a confidential report be mutilated or papers physically removed from the file of confidential reports."
' Besides it is also pertinent to mention that the impugned assessment (reported to be corrupt) in Part-VI is inconsistent with the appellant's assessment in Part-V wherein he has been found useful for further retention in service as well as in Part-VI whereby appellant was found fit for promotion in his turn.
8. At this juncture it will be expedient to reproduce instructions Nos.23 and 30 of the 'Instructions about Confidential Reports' which read below:--- "23. Report of Integrity.--- Integrity is the most important trait of character of a Government Servant. It should be assessed without fear or favour. The report should not be vague, but definite. An officer may be reasonably believed to be corrupt, if---
(i) he has a general and persistent reputation of being corrupt; or
(ii) any of his dependents or any other person through him or on his behalf is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his own sources of income or which he cannot account for satisfactorily; or 'Explanation--- The dependents will include wife/wives, children, step-children, parents, sisters and minor brothers, residing with and wholly dependent on the reported officer.
(iii) He has assumed a style of living beyond his means.
30. Manner of writing the reports. --- The opinion expressed should be the result of careful consideration; no personal, bias, or favourtism should colour the report. The reporting officer should be in a position to justify his views; if called upon, to do so."
' The impugned adverse remarks with regard to integrity of the appellant clearly manifest that the same are not based on the reasons enumerated in Instruction No,23 (supra). Simultaneously the expression 'reporting officer should be in a position to justify his views, if called upon, to do so' used in instruction No,30 (supra) is of great importance. It clearly manifests that the impugned adverse remarks should have been based on some tangible material. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to supplement these remarks with sufficient material. At this juncture it may be expedient to reproduce an extract of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case Noor Elahi's case (1997 SCMR 749) (supra) which roads as under:---
9. In the instant case, the appellant admittedly, has earned good reports before 1991 as well as for the subsequent periods. That being so, the Reporting Officer should have stated with particularity as to how all of a sudden there was a change in the conduct and behaviour of the appellant, supported by sufficient material. This has not been done by the Reporting Officer which has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant.
10. In view of the above discussion, it is not necessary to dilate further. Suffice it to say that the appeal is liable to succeed on the short ground that the remarks given in the adverse report suffer from vagueness.
' Resultantly, the appeal is allowed, the adverse remarks are expunged and the impugned judgment is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs."
' In the light of the above referred dictum of the Hon'ble apex Court and keeping in view the unblemished career of the appellant we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned remarks in the ACRs in question about integrity of the appellant recorded by the learned Reporting Officer and by the learned Countersigning Officer, being unfounded, without reasons suffer from vagueness and have resulted into serious prejudice to the appellant therefore following the principles of fairness, equity and safe administration of justice both the above appeals are liable to succeed.
7. Case-law cited by learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable on facts and not helpful to the respondent.
8. For the above reasons we accept both the Appeals Nos.22 and 23 of 2005 and direct the expunction of questioned adverse remarks from the ACRs of the appellant pertaining to the period 1-1-2002 to 19-9-2002 and 19-9-2002 to 31-12-2002 respectively.