1. MUHAMMAD MEHMOOD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).--Muhammad Jahangir Khan Goraya, has filed this appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974 in which he has impleaded Ghulam Ahmad Session Judge, Attock and Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore as respondent". Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned adverse remarks pertaining to the period from 1- 3-1986 to 30-10-1986 conveyed to him be expunged and order dated 28-2-1988 whereby the representation of the appellant was dismissed be set aside.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant was communicated adverse remarks in his ACR which are reproduced below:-
(a) PEN-PICTURE Belongs to a respectable and well to do Zamindar family; offers his prayers regularly; is probably obvious of accountability to God Almighty, or has no sense of proportion and fairplay; some how money has become his weakness and he stoops too low to have it. He made a solemn commitment to me to mend himself. Let us hope he abides by his pledge in future.
3. (b)COUNSELLING He was repeatedly advised to take care of his reputation and take mercy upon the institution he had been assigned to. Response during his stay at Kasur and Chunian was dismaying.
4. (c)ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE With his present approach and aptitude he does not suit the judiciary to tarnish the fair image of which he subscribed so copiously quite publicly.
5. Is mentally fertile although obsessed; can prove to be an effective and successful officer, if there comes a turning point in his life and he chooses to tread the path of virtue and righteousness in dispensing justice."
6. Appellant filed a representation before respondent No,2 which was dismissed on 28-2-1988. Hence this appeal.
7. We have heard the parties at length with the assistance of the departmental representatives.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned adverse remarks are result of misconception on the part of the reporting officer. Reliance has also been placed on following judicial pronouncements:- (i)1988 PLC (C.S) 800, 431, 392, 560; (ii)1986 SCMR 2001; (iii)1986 PLC (C.S.) 117.
9. On the other hand learned D.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 have fully supported the case of respondents and submitted that remarks are fully justified and may be allowed to stand on the A.C.R. of the appellant.
10. Relevant portion of the parawise comments furnished by reporting officer read as under:- "I feel that he is really repentant over his life-style in the past and is making a solemn pledge to reform himself. Even in the A.C.R. under challenge, I had at pages 4 and 5, alluded to this aspect of the officer who could be treated as fit for promotion if he genuinely tried to revolutionise himself.
11. Information is that the officer is endeavouring to improve his image. If that is so and I hope that he is capable of improving himself, he may be sympathetically dealt with and I will have no objection, if in its gracious kindness, the Tribunal feels inclined to expunge the remarks as an act of benevolence and in expectation that the appellant would be a changed man in future."
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that in the columns of A.C.R. the appellant has been placed in category 'A' and B' and nowhere he has ben shown in column 'C'. The record so produced before us reveals that even the countersigning Judge, his Lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas has also not agreed with the reporting officer as far as his adverse remarks are concerned. His Lordship has written "No remarks as I do not know the Officer and has not seen his any work". The impugned adverse remarks are not even supported by any material available on file. Respondents have failed to point out that there was any complaint against the appellant by the public or there was any other allegation. It is an established principle of law that if an officer is to be given adverse remarks then the reporting officer is bound to issue warning to him prior to the said period which has not been done in the present case, therefore, we see no reason to uphold these remarks. Moreover we find serious violation of, instruction No, 13 as none of the remarks of the reporting officer have been underlined in red-ink by the countersigning officer. It is thus clear that the countersigning officer has not approved and upheld the adverse remarks of the reporting officer for communication to the appellant. Even the comments furnished on behalf of the respondent No,1 speaks volume in favour of the appellant. On a careful perusal of the facts of the case we are of the considered I c view that remarks conveyed to the appellant are liable to be expunged. In the light of above discussion we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that impugned adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. of the appellant be expunged. There is no order as to costs.