MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN:- Ch.Muhammad Rafique Majithia, Additional District & Sessions Judge has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab through Secretary, S.GA. & I Department and the Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned adverse remarks pertaining to the period from 1-1-1985 to 4-5-1985 conveyed to him be expunged and order dated 8- 8-1987 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting his representation, be set aside.2. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant was communicated adverse remarks in his AC.R which arc reproduced below : PART 111. ATTITUDE#tbsBelow average#tbe#tbsIntegrity a ) General#tbe{{data misarranged}} a. Penopicture. Integrity of the officer in the estimation of the local bar is not enviable.
3. The appellant filed a representation before respondent No.2 which was rejected vide order dated 8-8-1987. Hcnco this appeal.
4. 1 have heard the parties at length with the assistance of departmental representatives.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned adverse remarks are vague and against tfye facts. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned D.A. Have fully supported the case of respondents and submitted that remarks arc fully justified and may be allowed to stand on the ACR of the appellant.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parlies and find that the impugned adverse remarks were recorded by Mr. Justice Sh. Khizar Hayat who was the Inspection Judge for Muzaffargarh at the relevant time. The remarks appear to be an honest assessm ent of the work and conduct of the appellant which otherwise came under review before the High Court from lime to the and can also be based on credible information recieved from the Members of the Bar. During the period under report the conduct of the appellant also came under judicial scrutiny in Crl. Misc. No.405/B-1985 which was a petition for cancellation of bail before arrest in a case U/S 302 PPC granted by the appellant by order dated 4-4-1985 and while cancelling the bail of respondents it was noticed by the High Court in order dated 1-6-1985 that the conduct of the appellant was objectionable as he failed to observe normal practice of the Court in making necessary inquiry and requisite certificate as to the disposal of a previous application by the Sessions Judge and pending the petition for cancellation of bail in the High Court granted bail after arrest to the other accused in the cross case by order dated 2-5-1985 and thus was done apparently in order to take the sting out of the case and to satisfy the complainant party. The conduct of the appellant, it was observed must be condemned as most reprehensible and a copy of the order dated 1-6-1985 passed in the cited case was ordered to be sent to the Registrar Lahore High Court for placing the same on the personal file of the appellant. In the absence of any personal motives alleged against the reporting officer, to which there is not a iota of indication in the Memorandum of appeal, no exception can be taken to the recording of the adverse remarks against the appellant. The representation of the appellant was rejected by the Judges of Lahore High Court which evidently showed the justification of the remarks and in view of the dictum of the Supreme court of pakistan in the case reported as Government of the Punjab vs. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 SC 684) this is to be given to the highest consideration as emanating from the Judges of Lahore High Court who are supposed to have made an honest assessment of the work and quality of appellant in the judicial hierarchy.
7. Viewed in this context the copy of Bar Resolution'and affidavits of Advocate placed on the record of the appeal lose all significance inasmuch as such pica of the appellant that during the entire service he did not earn adverse remarks is destructive of itself and goes to prove that so long as he performed his judicial functions in a benefilling manner he was awarded good reports and during the period under report when his work and conduct in the assessment of High Court was not satisfactory, he earned adverse remarks.
In the light of above discussion this appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of signed judgment be released to the parties according to the procedure of the Tribunal.