' JUSTICE MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR (CHAIRMAN).- This judgment will dispose of S.A. No, 53/2002 titled as (Ghulam Abbas Khokhar v. Registrar, Lahore High Court and another) and S.A. No,35 of 2002 titled as (Haji Ahmed v. Registrar Lahore High Court Lahore) as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals.
2. The appellant, Ghulam Abbas Khokhar, Judicial Officer/Civil Judge had been conveyed adverse remarks in his ACR for the period from 3-4-2001 to 26-11-2001 entered in his C.R. Dossier by the Reporting Officer, wherein, column (a) of Part V, (Pen: picture) the following adverse remarks had been entered by Mr. Manzoor Hussain Malik, District and Sessions Judge Attock:-- "There were numerous written & oral reports of corruption which on being inquired were confirmed by President Bar. Reader used to record evidence and adjourn cases which created problems and uproar. In a case complained against of having recorded fictitious deposition of plaintiff who was away at Karachi at the relevant time, the Officer admitted that the reader has done so to expedite trial and disposal, Retiring room was frequently used. On being confronted and advised to prove worthy of long judicial career, the officer used to turn neck and say that he has no intention to stay long in the service. He has some clandestine short term strategy which cannot make and portray him a committed Judicial Officer. He visited P.S. Hassanabad for seeking some illegal favor and the S.H.O. Recorded a 'Rapat' against him with shameful allegations for which explanation submitted hardly serves to exonerate.
' In his own estimate the Officer is not keen to permanently adopt judicial job therefore, his retention in service serves no good purpose for the Institution."
' On being conveyed these remarks, the appellant filed a representation before the Administrative Committee of Lahore High Court for expunction of these adverse remarks which was rejected and the appellant was intimated accordingly vide letter No,1012/RHC dated 30-7-2002 by the Registrar Lahore High Court; Lahore.
3. In another Appeal No,35 of 2002, titled as Haji Ahmad v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, the adverse remarks were entered in the C.R. Dossier of the appellant by the Reporting Officer Al-Haj Faroz- udDin, District and Sessions Judge Rawalpindi and endorsed by the Countersigning Officer, the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Mr. Falak Sher) as he then was, wherein, Haji Ahmad, appellant, was reported to be corrupt. The representation for the expunction of these adverse remarks recorded in the C.R.
Dossier of the appellant for the period from 1-1-2000 to 7-9-2000 was rejected by the Administrative Committee of Lahore High Court and the appellant was informed accordingly vide letter No,1003/RHC dated 30-7-2002 by the Registrar of this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ghulam Abbas Khokhar/appellant has contended that except impugned adverse remarks there was nothing against the appellant and he earned good reports from the Reporting Officers before and after the said period; that the allegation against the appellant had not been substantiated by any material or evidence and the appellant, was neither informed nor warned for the same; that the concerned Bar Association had not passed any resolution against the appellant nor the Reporting Officer called any comments from the appellant in any transfer application. Lastly argued that the remarks have been entered in the C.R. Dossier of the appellant on mere supposition.
5. Learned counsel representing Haji Ahmad, appellant has contended that there is no entry in column (a) of Part V (pen picture) by the Reporting Officer and he only without any material evidence made entry in column 'C' (Integrity) of Part (iii) against the appellant as reported to be corrupt. So much so, the Countersigning Officer had not entered any remarks in Part VII of the C.R.
Dossier of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant forcefully argued that the Administrative Committee of High Court while rejecting the representations of the appellants had not assigned any reason.
6. The arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, contending that the Reporting Officer in C.R.
Dossier of the appellant for the period mentioned reported that the appellants have repute of corruption, intransigent and inefficient. Further argued that if the higher authority did not comment on any remarks of lower authority, then it will be presumed that he has accepted it.
7. We have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the whole file of the appellants.
8. The appellants have never made any allegation against the Reporting Officers or the Countersigning Officers about their malafides and their own reputation; and where no allegation was made against A Reporting Officer or Countersigning Officer, their assessment as to the performance of their subordinates should be accepted as laid down in cases of F.Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary, Govt. Of N.-W.F.P. And 5 others (1994 SCM R 722) and Lahore High Court through Registrar v. Muhammad Jahangir Khan Goraya (1999 SCM R 2117).
9. Evaluation of a subordinate by a Reporting Officer or Countersigning Officer is a matter of subjective assessm ent and not an objective evaluation. The Service Tribunal or the Court as a rule cannot substitute the view recorded by the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer, nor it will interfere with the said evaluation. Reference in this respect can be made to the case of Inspector B General of Police Punjab, Lahore v. Rana Altaf Majid (1994 SCM R 1348).
10. In case of Shaukat Javed Farooqi Under. Secretary Civil Secretariat Lahore v. District and Sessions Judge Lahore and another (1999 SCM R 2141) the Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan have observed that the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District and the Chief Justice of High Court were the only Officers who could accurately assess the work and conduct of the subordinate Judicial Officer serving under them and were the best judges of his work, conduct and character. Basis of their opinion could be very extensive, depending on their own observation, the general reputation and such other material which may have been brought to their notice. Superior Officers could not be asked to produce material on which they based their opinion.
11. In a recent judgment passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C. As. Nos.8, 633,634, 173, 336, 337, 338, 1004, 1005, 1187, 1188 and 13 of 2002, C.A. No,1447 of 1998 and C. As. Nos.1621 and 1622 of 1999 filed against the judgments of Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal for the expunction of adverse remarks, the Hon'ble Judges exhaustively dealt with the matter. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under for further ready reference:-- "This brings us to the main common contention that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs of all the appellants were liable to be expunged as the same being subjective offended the observations made in Government of Punjab v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 SC 684) that the merits of the Officer reported upon should be judged from an absolutely detached objective point of view.
The contention is misconceived inasmuch as notwithstanding the observations made in Inspector General of Police Punjab v. Rana Aftab Majeed (1994 SCM R 1348), Noor Elahi v. Director of Civilian Personnel and 2 others (1997 SCM R 1749) and an unreported judgment dated 17-7-2001 rendered in C.P. 2102-L-1999 titled Ch. Muhammad Hanif v. The Lahore High Court that evaluation of a subordinate by a Reporting Officer or Countersigning Officer is a matter of subjective assessment and not an objective evaluation, the adverse remarks 'complained of meet the requirement of objective evaluation and do not militate against the aforesaid observations in the case of Ehsanul Haq Sethi which were made with reference to the guideline provided by Instruction No,19 of the Establishment Manual Volume-I as well as nature of the ACR Form and are worded thus:-- "Instruction No,19 provides a guideline such as impartial, forthright and unambiguous for assessing the performance of the Government servant. These are of utmost importance for comprehending the characteristics listed in the Annual Confidential Forms. If the Reporting Officer is partial his opinion is likely to cause incalculable damage to the Officer reported upon, and again if it is ambiguous or carelessly written, it would not represent the result of careful consideration so that if called upon the Reporting Officer will not be able to justify his opinion and such a lapse would definitely defeat the purpose of the report. Therefore, the merits of the Officer reported upon should be judged from an absolutely detached objective point of view and to attain this object the ACR forms are designed as to leave a very little scope for sketchy, vague or subjective assessment."
' The Hon' ble Supreme Court further observed in its judgment the position that emerges from the judgment is that an impartial and unambiguous evaluation based on credible information, personal observation and reports of the Inspection Judges falls within the ambit of an objective evaluation. In other words, an evaluation can be termed as objective if it is unambiguous, impartial, unbiased, result of careful consideration and is based on credible information, personal observation of the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer and reports of the Inspection Judges and it is not necessary that it must be based on tangible material like complaints in writing, resolutions of Bar Associations, transfer applications and assets etc. The adverse remarks with regard to the integrity of an officer are made on the basis of his reputation if the same are required to be supported with tangible material and instances of corruption then there will be no difference between an ACR and an Enquiry Report under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. In the present appeals the adverse remarks with regard to the integrity of the appellants have been made on the basis of their reputation. The Reporting Officers had scrutinized the work of the appellants keeping closely an eye on their conduct and work as superior of the District.
12. In the cases in hand, the adverse remarks relating to the integrity of the appellants are much explanatory. The Reporting Officer of Ghulam Abbas Khokhar had made remarks in detail, leveling clear allegations of corruption and inefficiency. The said appellant was advised G by the Reporting Officer time and again but it was all in vain and appellant miserably failed to improve himself. The reports were received by the Reporting Officer from the representative of the Bar Association about the corruption and inefficiency of Ghulam Abbas Khokhar, appellant. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record, establishing the mala fide of Reporting Officers nor it has been pleaded by the appellants particularly.
13. So far as this argument of the learned counsel is concerned that there was nothing except adverse remarks of disputed period against appellants, we see no force in this contention. The Reporting Officer when judged/assessed the reputation, conduct and work of the appellants had made adverse remarks against them which were endorsed by the Countersigning Officer and according to Instruction No,36 of the Punjab Estacode, Vol-1, which provides that if the highest Officer does not comment on any remarks of the Reporting Officer, it will be presumed that he had accepted it. The Countersigning Officer of Ghulam Abbas Khokhar appellant had given remarks that there is no reason to differ with the Reporting Officer as there was sufficient material available against the appellant as reported by the Reporting Officer, his immediate boss/the District and Sessions Judge, for the said period.
14. We do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that Administrative Committee of Lahore High Court while rejecting the representations of the appellants had not assigned reasons. The representation of a Judicial Officer when placed before the Admn.
Committee, it is always thoroughly examined by a Sub-committee constituted by the Administrative Committee and on the basis of report of Sub-Committee as well as taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the Reporting Officer, the final order is passed by the Administrative Committee. The Admn. Committee of the High Court consists of seven Senior Judges including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court and the said Committee is never required to assign reasons while rejecting the representation of a Judicial Officer.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant (Ghulam Abbas Khokhar) when confronted with the remarks entered in column (a) Part V/Pen Picture of C.R. Dossier of appellant, could not rebut the same and both the learned counsel for the appellants failed to persuade us to interfere with the order of rejection of the representations of appellants passed by the Administrative Committee of High Court.
16. For the foregoing reasons and following the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred to above, we find no merit in the appeals which are hereby dismissed.
17. The appellants shall be informed by the office accordingly.