' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 1240-L and 1241-L of 1997 as they arise out of a consolidated judgment by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, whereby Service Appeals Nos.4 and 5 of 1992, brought by the petitioner for the expunction of adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer and countersigned by the learned Inspection Judge in his Annual Confidential Reports pertaining to periods from 1-1-1990 to 31-12-1990 and 1-1- 1991 to 9-41991, were dismissed.
2. The following excerpts from the impugned judgment clearly spell out the details of the adverse remarks as also their communication to the petitioner: "Facts briefly for the disposal of these appeals are that the appellant joined service as E.A.C. In the year 1974. He worked as Judicial Magistrate from 1989 till 15-11-1991 and thereafter, was transferred to the executive side as Assistant Commissioner. While working as a Judicial Magistrate at Lahore, the then District and Sessions Judge, Lahore, Mr. Ausaf Ali being the Reporting Officer described his working in the Annual Confidential Reports pertaining to the period 1-1-1990 to 31-12-1990 as under:- - PART V "(a) Pen-picture: Did not enjoy good reputation.
PART VI "(a) Overall Grading. Meets bare minimum standards. (Below Average)
(b) Fitness for Not yet fit for promotion.
Promotion
(c) Integrity Reported to be corrupt.
"This assessm ent was countersigned by Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, the then Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. The aforesaid remarks were communicated to the appellant vide Letter No, 482/RHC on 20-5-1991 by the Registrar Lahore High Court. These remarks are as under: - PART V: "(a) Pen-picture: Honesty not above board.
PART VI: "(a) Overall grading Meets bare minimum standards. (below average)
(b) Fitness for Not yet fit for promotion. promotion:
(c) Integrity Reported to be corrupt.
"This assessm ent was countersigned by Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, the then Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. The aforesaid remarks were communicated to the appellant vide Letter No, 482/RHC on 20-9-1991 by the Registrar, Lahore High Court. These remarks are as PART V "(a) Pen-picture. Honesty not above board.
PART VI "(a) Overall Grading Meets bare Minimum standards (below average)
(b) Fitness for Not yet fit for promotion. promotion
(c) Integrity Reported to be corrupt "Similarly remarks pertaining to period' from 1-1-1991 to 9-4-1991 recorded by Mr. Ausuf Ali District and Sessions Judge were communicated to the appellant vide Letter No, 955/RHC on 6-7-1992.
These remarks are as under:-- PART V '(a) Pen-picture. Did not enjoy good reputation.
PART VI "(a) Overall Grading Meets bare minimum standards (Below averag
(b) Fitness for Not yet fit for promotion promotion.
(c) Integrity Reported to be corrupt.
3. The petitioner submitted separate representations for the expunction of adverse remarks above and the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court comprising of Senior most Judges rejected the same through Letter No,230/RHC, dated 2-5-1995 which was communicated to him by the S&GAD on 23-5-1995, whereafter he made Service Appeals Nos.4 and 5 of 1992, before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal proceeded with the resolution of petitioner's appeals by observing that the grading in Part IV of the A.C.R. For the period from 1-1-1990 to 31-12-1990 as of 'A' category, does not advance the case of the petitioner in that the Reporting Officer correctly graded him as of "B" category for period from 1-1-1990 to 9-4-1991; that latter recording was done honestly as wherever he noticed that the petitioner was lacking in same respect, he recorded the same without any malice; and that the evaluation made by the Reporting Officer deserves full respect. It was also observed that absence of any counselling by the Reporting Officer is of no avail to the petitioner for the reasons that; (1) counselling is not mandatory in nature and that: (2) the learned counsel appearing for the appellant then, frankly conceded that no malice whatsoever could be attributed to the Reporting Judge. F.Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary Government of N.-W.F.P. Etc. (1994 SCMR 722) was also pressed into service, for the proposition that in the absence of any malice, the evaluation has to be given credence.
5. Mr. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned Advocate Supreme Court representing the petitioner, has criticised the impugned judgment on two grounds. Firstly, it was contended that an earlier decision by the Tribunal reported as Muhammad Ashraf Shagufta, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot v.
Lahore High Court through Registrar and another (1995 PLC (CS) 1165) was lost sight of by the Tribunal and that such treatment meted out to the case of the petitioner is violative of the rule of consistency. According to the learned counsel, there was unreasonable delay in communicating the adverse remarks to the petitioner and, in the absence of any reasonable explanation forthcoming in that behalf, the Tribunal should have expunged the disputed/adverse remarks. He also referred to an unreported judgment dated 6-7-1998 of this Court in Civil Petition No, 1410-L of 1997 in which one of us (Muhammad Arif, J.) was a Member of the Bench, to contend that the case of Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others (1996 SCMR 256) was relied upon therein and, for that reason also, the same treatment should be meted out to his client, now.
6. Mr. Azam Rasool, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the respondents District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and the Lahore High Court through its Registrar, has pressed into service Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 SC 684) and Syed Tahir Hussain Shirazi v. The Government of the Punjab and others (1990 SCMR 1510) in support of his plea that the impugned judgment is in line with the said precedents. According to him, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the Tribunal was in error in not following its earlier decision in case of Muhammad Ashraf Shagufta (supra) is of little help to the petitioner, in that, this Court has already granted leave to appeal against the said judgment. This assertion was not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. As regards the second limb of the plea that this Court has referred to the case of Ch. Saeed Ahmed (supra) in the unreported judgment dated 6-7-1998 and held that adverse remarks should be communicated within reasonable period, suffice it to say that the said decision proceeded on the twin-ground that adverse remarks should be communicated "within reasonable time" and that the dispute therein related to an individual grievance and no question of law of public importance was involved warranting interference under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution. We further find that the observation made by this Court in the said judgment was that there being no reasonable explanation for communicating the adverse remarks to the officer concerned within the prescribed period, "the Tribunal was right in not upholding such remarks and expunged the same." Here, the aforementioned peculiarities of this Court's unreported judgment dated 6-7-1998 are manifestly lacking.
8. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that any one of the Reporting and Countersigning Officers was inimically disposed towards him. The observations made by the learned Tribunal towards the end of the impugned judgment that the requirement of counselling to precede the recording of adverse remarks is not mandatory in nature and that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before it had frankly conceded that no malice whatsoever could be attributed to the reporting Judge, have not been shown to be deficient either in law or even on the strength of the concession aforereferred. Similar is the position with regard to the observations that the then District.And Sessions Judge, Lahore and the then Chief Justice "are the only officers who can accurately assess the work and conduct of the Subordinate Judge serving under them. They are the best judges of his work, conduct and character. The basis for their opinion can be very extensive, depending on their own observation, the general reputation and such other material which may have been brought to their notice: All this material does not generally form part of the record. The opinion is formed by the superior officers on the basis of conglomeration of events too minute to be noticed individually and recorded separately. The total impact of such events, however, brings into focus a clear image of the persons before them. The superior officers cannot, therefore, be asked to produce material on which they based their opinion...".
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to controvert the support sought by the learned counsel for the respondents from the precedents, referred to in para. 6 above.
10. Looked at from whatever angle, no ground for interference with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal has been made out.
11. Resultantly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.