' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against order dated 22-12- 1992 made by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1391/M of 1992, title whereof read thus: "Application under Section 561-A. Cr.P.C., praying that in view of the foregoing facts and submissions he continued existence of the proceedings now pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Yousufi M.I.C. Sialkot in respect (of) F.I.R. No,77 of 3-4-1991 for an offence under section 506, P.P.C. Be quashed as being unlawful and failing to achieve the ends of justice. Any incidental relief may be also granted."
' The case of 1st respondent before the High Court was that an F.I.R., was lodged against him and some others by one Noor Elahi alleging that they entered upon certain land with hatchets to cut down trees. Although no injures were attributed to any one but still case F.I.R. No,77 was registered under section 506, P.P.C. At Police Station Rangpura, District Sialkot concerning the alleged occurrence dated 3-4-1991, on the same date. The complainant (and others) were sent up for trial vide report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Dated 29-8-1991. As the prosecution was not moved for doing anything, he made an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking acquittal from the case as charge under section 506 was groundless. The application remained pending before the present appellant (Muhammad Ashraf Yusufi E.A.C./M.I.0 Sialkot) for well-over of year and 3 months during which as many as 22 hearings took place but still the appellant did not make any order thereon.
2. After obtaining a report from the appellant and comments from the District Magistrate, Sialkot thereon, the learned Judge in Chambers proceeded with making the impugned order dated 22-12- 1992, para. 2 whereof reads thus: "The conduct of the Magistrate calls for censure. Application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved before him on 1-11-1991 and after hearing of arguments (oral, according to him, what he means by oral arguments, he must be a wise man to think off) the matter was kept lingering. He on innumerable dates of hearing adjourned the case for the complainant's counsel without realising that in criminal cases it is only the prosecutor on behalf of the State who is incharge of the case and the complainant's counsel via the courtesy of the actual prosecutor can address the Court. In this view of the matter, the case was unnecessarily adjourned and duty shirked. The remarks about inefficiency and shirking of duty be recorded in the A.C.R. Of the Magistrate. The District Magistrate is also advised too have a look to his duties which certainly includes the proper working of the subordinate Courts."
3. Para. 4 of the Leave Grant Order, dated 2nd May, 1994 reads thus: "The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above order has been made without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and thus, he was condemned unheard."
4. Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal, has referred to the explanation of the appellant in compliance with the order of learned Judge in Chambers made in this cause on 10-11-1992 as also to the comments of the learned District Magistrate in obedience to the same interim order of the learned Judge in Chambers, to contend that the direction for recording the remarks about inefficiency and shirking of duty have been made without providing the appellant an opportunity thereagainst. He has further contended that the directions made by the learned Judge in Chambers are tantamount to overreaching the procedure/law for initiating and countersigning the A.C.Rs, of persons similarly placed as the appellant with the apparent result that even the resort to the remedy of appeal or representation, in terms of section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act (No,VIII of 1974), could not be availed by the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the explanations offered by the appellant, which were favourably commented upon by the learned District Magistrate, Sialkot, have not even much as been referred to in the impugned order dated 22-12-1992.
5. Nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, including the private respondent.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced in support of this appeal and have also been taken through the available material by Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel for appellant. What meets the eye is that first two limbs of the argument are supported by the impugned order dated 22-12-1992 and the explanation as also the comments, respectively of the appellant and the learned District Magistrate, Sialkot, which are available at pages 23 to 27-A and page 28. The comments of the District Magistrate read thus: "The record of interim orders and the explanation submitted by the learned Magistrate tends to show that he had to adjourn the matter on various occasions on the consent of the parties. The adjournment sought by one party was never objected to by the other. At times the case had to be adjourned under unavoidable circumstances pertaining to executive duties of the E.A.C.
Concerned. It appears that the concerned Magistrate himself did not voluntarily contribute to delay that has occurred in the disposal of the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C."
Had the explanation of the appellant, which was duly supported by synopsis of interim order sheet in case State v. Akbar Jahangir and two others including Hassan Din accused placed in column No,2 of Challan under section 173, Cr.P.C., been noticed by the learned Judge in Chambers, the fate of the case would have been different. We further find that between 16-10-1991 and 14-11-1991, the prosecution witnesses were not in attendance and that evidence was summoned by the appellant on 3 dates of hearing falling within the said period. It was on the last mentioned date that, after the postponement of the case, the application of the private respondent herein under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was presented and notice to State was ordered therein. The dates of hearing succeeding the above period i.e, between Serial Nos. 8 and 32, commencing 2-12-1991 and ending 8-11-1992, stand duly accounted for.
7. As regards the plea that the appellant was left high and dry in the matter of resorting to the remedies of appeal and representation in the event of any adverse remarks having been recorded in his A.C.R. For the period in question, suffice it to say that the same cannot be rejected. The matter in relation to initiating and countersigning of Annual Confidential Reports of persons similarly placed as the appellants, appears to have been sacrificed at the altar of expediency and that too sans any fault of the appellant. Neither the petitioner could be condemned unheard, much less without even so much as referring to his own explanation as well as the comments of the learned District Magistrate, Sialkot, nor his rights as an in service employee could be denied him, which has the germs of spoiling his service career for all times to come. Looked at from whatever angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained on any discernible principle.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 22-12-1992 is set aside. Needless to say that the entries of adverse remarks in appellant's A.C.R./s stand deleted from the very date on which order dated 22-12-1992 was complied with.