' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J./Chairman.--- By this single judgment we propose to dispose of S.A.No,10 of 2005 and S.A.No,2 of 2007, which have been filed by the Judicial Officer/Sheikh Allah Bakhsh under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 seeking expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs for the period from 1-1-2002 to 13-5-2002 and 10-7-2004 to 31-12-2004 respectively against which representations of the appellant have also been rejected by the Lahore High Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. In appeal bearing S.A.No,10 of 2005, learned counsel for the appellant has mainly alleged mala fide on the part of the learned Reporting Officers in recording adverse remarks against the appellant whereas with regard to the second appeal bearing S.A.No,2/2007 it is argued that the adverse remarks recorded by the countersigning officer in the impugned ACR are based on misconception. In overall grading of Parts II, III and IV the appellant has been placed in column "b" and his disposal of cases has never been found unsatisfactory. We have reviewed the disposal statements of the appellant. Similarly, perusal of the record of S.A.No,10 of 2005 shows that in the ACR for the period from 1-1-2002 to 13-5-2002 the appellant in overall grading has been rated in column "C" however, in para V(a) he is reported as "Corrupt and incompetent" and in (d)
"Not Useful" Part V(b) of the ACR, which relates to Counselling is blank, meaning thereby prior to recording the aforesaid remarks the appellant was neither warned nor counseled qua his work, conduct and integrity. In absence of any counseling or warning the learned Reporting Officer was not justified in recording adverse remarks against the appellant. Reliance is placed in the case of Mrs. Sajida Tahir v. Chairman, Government Board, National Institute of Modern Languages, Islamabad and 2 others (1995 PLC (C.S.) 1204) and Mehmood Aslam v. The Director Education, Schools, and others 1991 PLC (C.S.) 1061. In the last cited case it has been held that:--- ".Counselling to civil servant before recording of adverse entry in ACR must be given in writing and oral counseling would be no compliance of requirement as to counseling prescribed in instructions."
' Even otherwise, the appellant worked under the Reporting Officer just for a period of four months and some days. The appellant joined service in the year 1997 and at the time of recording of the above ACR he had served the department for about five years. In his first year of service i.e, 1997 he worked under two Reporting Officers and both recorded good remarks about his work and conduct.
Till the year 2000 the appellant earned good remarks and he was also reported to be an "honest" judicial officer. He earned adverse remarks for the period from 1-1-2001 to 4-12-2001 but the same were expunged on his representation by the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court on 28-1-2003. It is astonishing as to how he became dishonest corrupt and incompetent within next few months, particularly when there was no complaint pending against him. A perusal of the disposal statements pertaining to the period from January to April, 2002 brought on record by the appellant shows that he had earned excess units during the aforesaid period. In the case of Jamshed lqbal v. Agricultural Engineering, D.G. Khan and 2 others (1990 PLC (C.S.) 808) it has been held that:--- "The service record of the appellant has been found to be satisfactory and unblemished. There is nothing on the record indicating that any counseling or warning was ever conveyed to the appellant by the reporting officer during the period under adverse report. The Ist and second countersigning officers have declared him as an average worker. Appellant's entire service being good it is inconceivable situation that the appellant had turned into inefficient or corrupt for a period of four months and then he again regained his efficiency and honesty quite abruptly."
3. We have also noticed that the way the learned Reporting Officer has assessed the work and conduct of the appellant in the impugned ACR is against the instructions on the subject. As per aforesaid Instructions the Reporting Officer and Countersigning Officer should be as objective as possible. The Reporting Officer right from Part II to Part IV, which require assessment of the officer reported upon qua his "Personal Qualities", "Attitude" and "Proficiency in Job" has placed the appellant in column "c", which shows that assessment of the Reporting Officer is "subjective" and not "objective". Such a way adopted in recording ACR is not considered proper and close to the spirit of recording ACRs of subordinates.
4. We have also probed into the arguments of alleged mala fide and ill will against the Reporting Officer. The stance of the appellant is that Ch. Faqir Hussain, Advocate against whom the appellant had lodged an F.I.R. For producing fake witness in his Court, had misreported to the learned Reporting Officer that the appellant had passed some derogatory remarks against him in his Court.
Copy of the affidavit executed by the appellant on 28-3-2002 and submitted to the learned Reporting Officer has been placed on the record. Submission of the said affidavit lends support to the argument of mala fide and ill will on the part of the Reporting Officer. It seems that the learned Reporting Officer had more credence over Ch. Faqir Hussain, Advocate than the appellant/Judicial Officer and while doing so he was cognizant of the fact that the appellant/Judicial Officer had lodged an F.I.R. Against the said advocate, on the allegation that he had produced a fake witness in his court. In the circumstances, it can thus safely be inferred that the Reporting Officer was biased at the time of recording ACR of the appellant and possibility of his mala fide and ill will cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to expunge the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period from 1-1-2002 to 13-5-2002.
5. So far as adverse remarks recorded by the countersigning officer in ACR for the period from 10-7- 2004 to 31-12-2004 are concerned, we are of the view that the same are the result of some misconception. In the aforesaid ACR the Hon'ble Countersigning Officer has recorded the following remarks:- "Does not hold good reputation. Corrupt reportedly. Gave car on superdari in narcotics case his reply was sought which was not satisfactory. I am not satisfied with his work and capability after perusing his judgments in number of cases."
' The appellant has denied the fact of having given any car on 'spurdari' in some narcotic case.
There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant had ever been asked to submit his reply in this regard. The learned counsel for the respondent/department has also conceded this fact that the adverse remarks are the result of some misconception. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to direct that the adverse remarks may be expunged from the impugned ACR of the appellant.
6. For what has been discussed above, the aforementioned appeals are allowed and the adverse remarks recorded in the impugned ACRS are directed to be expunged from the ACRs of the appellant.