' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Through the instant Service Appeal under 'section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991, the appellant is seeking expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs for the period from 1-1-2006 to 31-5-2006 and 5-6-2006 to 11-11-2006 against which his representation has also been rejected, vide letter No,665/RHC dated 22-5-2007, issued by the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the opinion of the reporting officer is favourable to the appellant as he has been placed in overall grading in column "b"; that in the pen picture the Reporting Officer has not written any adverse remarks against the appellant; that in Part VI, the appellant has been found to be "equal the majority of officers" and "fit for promotion in his turn"; that adverse remarks have been recorded by the countersigning authority without making any reference to any incident or relying upon any complaint from litigant public or the Bar; that the Countersigning Officer has not differed with the opinion of the Reporting Officer qua work and conduct of the appellant in Parts I to VI; that it is settled principle of law that if the Countersigning Officer does not comment on any remarks of the Reporting Officer, it will be presumed that he has accepted the same; that no written or oral counseling was undertaken either by the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer; and that as the adverse remarks are not based on cogent material and justification, therefore, the same are liable to be expunged. Reliance is placed on the cases of Sh. Abdul Rashid v. Reporting Officer etc. (1996 PLC (C.S.) 930) and Ch. Shabbir Hussain and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court and others (PLD 2004 SC 191).
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Countersigning Officer is not required to disclose his source of information to justify his adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs of the appellant. He has relied upon the case of Muhammad Yahya Khan Kulachi v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore (2011 SCMR 1381). He further submitted that the appellant has not raised any ground like malice or ill will or biased attitude against the Countersigning Officer and in absence of such allegations adverse remarks cannot be questioned.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. We have perused both the impugned ACRs, The Reporting Officers in both the ACRs are different but the Countersigning Officer is the same. Both the Reporting Officers have rated the appellant in Grade "b" in Parts II, III and IV which deal with "Personal Qualities", "Attitude" and "Proficiency in Job" respectively. In Part V(A) Pen Picture no adverse remarks are recorded by the Reporting Officers. In Part VI (a) he is adjudged "equal the majority of officers" in Part V I(b)(ii) "Fit for promotion in his turn" and in Part VI(c)(i) "Honest". Admittedly, the Countersigning Officer has not differed with the opinion of the Reporting Officers with regard to their assessment made in Parts II to VI of both the ACRs, In absence of any difference of opinion recorded in any columns of Parts II to VI it is presumed that he has agreed with the assessment made by the Reporting Officers. The Countersigning Officer has recorded the following adverse remarks in Part VII (a) of both the impugned ACRs: "Apart from being an average officer, he did not have a good reputation in the Bar."
'The above said remarks of the Countersigning Officer seem to be inconsistent and ambiguous in nature. When a Judicial Officer is adjudged "Honest", "Fit for promotion in his turn", "Useful for further retention in service" and "equals the majority of officers" by the Reporting Officer as well as the Countersigning Officer his reputation "bad" or "good" in the Bar cannot be used as a barometer for recording adverse remarks in his ACRs, If such adverse remarks on the basis of reputation in Bar, are to be recorded, then it is essential that these should be backed by solid proof and specific instances, as in the present time and age, when all sorts of pressures are known to be exerted upon the judicial officers by members of the bars, it has become incumbent upon the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Officer to record any adverse remarks based on the feed back of the members of the bar with extreme caution, based on solid and concrete proof and not merely on hearsay. The Reporting Officer is considered as the best judge for assessment of the work and conduct of his subordinate Judicial Officer. In the present case the Reporting Officer has not passed any adverse remarks against the appellant. The Countersigning Officer's remarks that the appellant did not have a good reputation in the Bar are not justified by any cogent reason.
6. Admittedly, the appellant was never warned or given counseling in writing or verbal before recording adverse remarks in his ACRs, In absence of any counselling adverse remarks cannot be recorded. Reliance is placed on the case of Mrs. Sajida Tahir v. Chairman, Government Board, National Institute of Modern Languages, Islamabad and 2 others (1995 PLC (C.S.) 1204. In the case of Mehmood Aslam v. The Director Education, Schools, etc. (1991 PLC (C.S.) 1061) it has been held that Counselling to civil servant before recording of adverse entry in ACR must be given in writing and oral counselling would be no compliance of requirement as to counselling prescribed in instructions. The Countersigning Officer while recording adverse remarks has relied upon some information received from the Bar. We would like to observe that if information collected from the Bar is given such a credence so as to make the basis for recording adverse remarks against the judicial officers it would definitely create a sense of insecurity in the minds of the judicial officers and they may fail to discharge their duties without fear and favour. Even otherwise, if in the opinion of the Countersigning Officer reputation of the appellant in the Bar was not good qua his "integrity" he should have differed with the assessment of the Reporting Officer but this was not done.
Needless to mention here that the reporting officer is the best person to adjudge the performance and conduct of a subordinate judicial officer. We, therefore, do not subscribe to the remarks recorded by the learned Countersigning Officer in the impugned ACR and direct that these remarks be expunged from the record of the appellant. The instant appeal stands accepted.