Section 5 Negative Remarks for the period 1 1 2005 to 1 2005, there was no negative remarks in the deletion of the previous ACR recorded by the same reporting officer, Reverse Remarks 11 were recorded on 10, 2006 ie one year. After more than that and it was discussed. In 2007, the entries were changed by the reporting officer in the Appellant's Part III and the Appellant's ACR VI. The impression regarding the Appellant's effect was that no qualifications or integrity could be imported overnight. The negative comments were not endorsed by any of the content, but were the result of the reporting officer's correct attitude, the question was whether an officer in the former ACR who was called "honest" was Had become "corrupt". Without a corner for a few months, there will be no complaint against him and no one should turn to corruption from an honest one overnight, but rather with the appellant's previous and subsequent work, this kind of behavior develops. The wind was up to its mark. In question, his ACR, which was recorded more than a year later, is to be categorized as the overall appellant in Part Six (a) of the majority of the adjutant officers (average) and Equally equated to a judicial officer who "cannot be declared as a majority of equal officers ud promotion not yet suitable for development", the corrupt is reported to be corrupt and useful for further maintaining service. No, such comments, if allowed to be retained in most judicial officers, were obligated to declare the ACR to be a Report of Corruption \ Reporting Office From the
Related judgments — Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal, 2015
