' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---The appellant who is working as Assistant Estate Officer (Accounts) in the. Estate Office, Islamabad has filed this appeal for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. For the year 1990 which was conveyed to him on 15-8-1991. On receipt of the copy of the A.C.R. Containing adverse remarks, the appellant represented to respondent No, 1 on 26-8-1991 which was ultimately rejected vide order dated 28-11-1995.
2. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. For the year 1991 are not based on facts and deserves to be expunged. He also contended that the appellant actually served in N.L.C. From 30-4-1990 to 31-12- 1990, as such the period of report should have been for the said period instead of 1-1-1990 to 31-12- 1990 as mentioned in the A.C.R. Communicated to the appellant.
3. A perusal of the A.C.R. Communicated to the appellant and the adverse remarks mentioned in para. 4 of the appeal shows that all of them are based on the personal knowledge of the Reporting Officer as well as the Countersigning Officer under whom the appellant has been working in major part of the year 1990. The learned counsel for the appellant despite his best efforts, was not in a position to raise any technical objection against the remarks awarded to the appellant. The.
Reporting Officer was the best judge for the assessment of the performance of the appellant under whose immediate supervision he worked during the year in question. It is also borne out from the record that there were disciplinary cases against the appellant during the year in question which is indicative of the fact that the remarks awarded to the appellant are well-founded. The same have also been confirmed by the Countersigning Officer who has specifically mentioned that the appellant proved himself to be untrustworthy. In this state of affairs, we do not find any technical defect with the adverse remarks recorded in the appellant's A.C.R. The Reporting Officer has pointed out not only the weak points of the appellant but has also mentioned in pen-picture that he is intellectual intelligent hard worker. This shows that the. Reporting. Officer has given. Quite independent assessm ent of the performance of the appellant during the year in question
4. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to expunge the impugned remarks, which are fully justified. However, the mistake which requires to be rectified is that the report for the year 1990 ought to have been considered only for the period from 30-4-1990 to 31-12-1990 during which the appellant worked in N. L. C. Under the Reporting Officer. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.