Law: Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)

Section: 5

(a) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)---

----S. 5---Judicial officer---Performance Evaluation Report---"Adverse" or "Advisory" remarks---Scope---Remarks were recorded by the District Judge in Performance Evaluation Report ("PER") of Civil Judge for relevant period ('remarks-in-question')---Appellant (Judicial Officer) assailed order whereby respondent (Registrar High Court) declined his representation for expunction of remarks-in-question which were "He is advised to run his office with dignity and integrity"---Plea of appellant was that said "adverse remarks" were problematic for his service career---Stance of respondent was that the remarks were "advisory" for improvement of the appellant---Whether the impugned remarks are "adverse" or "advisory" in nature---Held, that mere caption of the remarks is not the determining factor, rather nature and essence of the remarks would lead to the conclusion as to whether these remarks are "advisory" or "adverse"---Adverse remarks indicate the defects or deficiencies in the quality of work or performance or conduct of a civil servant except the words in the nature of counsel or advice---Adverse remarks can be deciphered from the words used by the reporting officer in his remarks and the impact those words may have on the reputation and general image of the officer--Adverse remarks do not become advisory even if the reporting officer calls them advisory or the authority treats them so--- Moreover, advisory remarks, at the time of promotion of the civil servant, will become adverse and carry stigma if it is found that despite the advice the officer did not make any improvement--Remarks-in-question were "adverse" and cannot be considered "advisory" by any stretch of imagination---Record did not provide basis or direct evidence for the remarks-in-question---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned order passed by the respondent ( Registrar High Court) ; consequently, impugned remarks in appellant's PER for the relevant period stood expunged--Appeal was allowed.