' JUSTICE MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, feels aggrieved of adverse remarks entered in his ACR for the period 1-1-1994 to 6-7-1994.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant had blotless record both before and after the said impugned entries and that entry in Part VI (c) (iii) "reported to be corrupt" are not based on any material whatsoever.
3. Mr. Muhammad Azam Rasool, Advocate for the respondent has taken us through the records of ACRs pertaining to a point of time both before and after the said few months for which the said entry has been made and we find that he had not been given any adverse entries in the ACRs pertaining to the said point of time. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to bring to our notice any material on which the said entries might have been based. Even upon an examination of the impugned ACR we find that learned Reporting Officer has over all graded the appellant to be average in Parts-II, III and IV while drawing pen picture the only observations is "nothing special". We further find in Part-VI (a)(iii) he has been graded as an average Officer while in Part (VI)(b)(ii) he has been reported to be fit for promotion on his turn. We, therefore, find that the said impugned entry is rather inconsistent with other entries in Part-VI. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the case of Noor Elahi v. Director of Civilian Personnel, Rear Air Headquarters, Peshawar and 2 others (1997 PLC (C.S.).1059). We have examined the said judgment and find that the following has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances:- "In the instant case, the appellant admittedly, has earned good reports before 1991 as well as for subsequent periods. That being so, the Reporting Officer should have stated with particularity as to how all of the sudden there was a change in the conduct and behaviour of the appellant, supported by sufficient material. This has not been done by the Reporting Officer which has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant".
' We find that the said observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court fully cover the case in hand. This service appeal is accordingly allowed and impugned remarks in the ACR of the appellant for the period 1-1-1994 to 6-7-1994 are expunged.