This is an appeal by Liaquat Ali, Civil Judge against the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1981 while he was serving as Civil Judge, Chunian. The remarks were communicated to the appellant through D.O. dated 6-10-1982 and read as under:-- "10. Integrity: (a)Intellectual (b)Moral. Needs watching.
Pen-Picture: Must take care of his reputation."
2. The appellant submitted a representation against these adverse remarks but the same was rejected and decision was communicated to him vide memo. dated 21/23rd April, 1983. The appellant still not feeling satisfied decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
3. The appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 12-9-1983 and the same was admitted to regular hearing. The respondents have contested the appeal. However, respondent No, 1 alone has filed the written objections. I have heard the learned Counsel from both the sides, gone through the paper book of this appeal and the record. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the remarks are against facts and ambiguous; therefore, liable to be expunged.
4. Malik Azam Rasul, Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the reporting officer has recorded his observations correctly and honestly. He has no malice or prejudice, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the remarks.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the parties and the documents specially the adverse remarks. I am of the considered view that the remarks are of advisory nature and the appellant is feeling panicky just for nothing. The remarks recorded in the column of "Integrity" "needs watching" actually does not pertain to the appellant but it was meant for his reporting officers to keep in view these remarks in the succeeding years. The remarks recorded in the column of "Pen-Picture" that the appellant "must take care of his reputation" are clearly advisory in nature. The remarks were communicated, as already stated, vide D.O. dated 6-10-1982 from Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore, and para 2 of the D.O. reads as under:- "In communicating these remarks the Chief Justice and Judges expect that you will make efforts to remove the defects pointed out above and improve in work/conduct."
6. The plain reading of abovequoted D.O. clearly confirms my opinion that the remarks were of advisory nature and not adverse. It is the prerogative of every employer to guide and advise his employees in respect of their work and conduct. This right is unquestionable. The Tribunal and, as a matter of fact, none else, can interfere with this power. The exact nature of the advisory remarks has been summed up by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in latest case Government of the Punjab v.
Ehsanul Haq Sethi reported as PLD 1986 SC 684 which reads as under:- "Advisory remarks are not to be treated as adverse for the purpose of promotion unless it is established that the officer concerned has not paid any heed to the piece of advice given to him and has failed to show any improvement."
7. The result is that since the impugned remarks are of advisory nature, therefore, the present appeal is misconceived. The same is dismissed as incompetent with no orders as to costs.