' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Government of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23-3-1985 whereby the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report by the countersigning officer namely, the Commissioner, were ordered to be expunged.
2. Mr. M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner objected at first to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review or reconsider the recording of the remarks and to sit in judgments over their correctness or otherwise. Secondly, he also contested the propriety and the desirability of the interference by the Tribunal in this particular case. As regards the first ground Mr. Saeed Beg, the learned counsel has conceded that in view of various decisions of this Court it is no longer possible to contend that such a matter is outside the purview of the Tribunal. As regards the desirability or the propriety of interference, Mr. Saccd Beg has confined his submissions to the facts already taken note of by the Tribunal, namely, the Comments of the Commissioner that he made adverse remarks on the basis of general reputation enjoyed by the it Officer.
3. The performance of a magistrate is not so much a matter of reputation as of expert assessment by a superior from record and performance relatable to individual cases and situations. By resorting to the reputation as the source and not to the actual performance the Commissioner has justified his remarks by reference to a somewhat extraneous consideration. It is true that ordinarily, in recording remarks or opinions, full reasons need not be given but the conclusions have to be based on facts and when in contest, as in this case the concerned officer should have plausible explanation to justify his conclusions. In this case that was not adequately done and the Tribunal was justified in interfering with it.
4. No question of law of public importance is raised in the case. Hence leave to appeal is refused.