Section 5 Adult Remarks relating to the period 1 1 2006 to 13 5 2006 and 5 6 2006 to 11 11 2006 were recorded without reference to any incident or reference to any case of litigation or bar effect credibility. Was. The Judicial Officer in the Bar Relevance and Scope Countersigning Officer was not bad or good and did not differ from the officer reporting the appellant's impact. The provocative material and justification, therefore, responsible for dismissing the respondents' plea was to disclose information about their sources to the counseling officer to justify the negative remarks listed in Appellant's ACR. Was not required, especially when allegations of misconduct or prejudice against a misconduct or countersigning officer were made. The accuracy countersigning officer did not disagree with the reporter's opinion. In relation to the assessment made in both ACRs from Parts II to II and VI, it was considered that in the absence of any opinion, he was reporting when the Judicial Officer was declared as a "honest ud". The officers agreed with this assessment. ???? Suitable for its turnaround, service Useful for further retention of services and equal to the majority of the ing officer, as well as the countersigning officer may not be bad or bad in the bar. The ACR is used as a barometer to record negative comments. If such remarks were to be recorded on the basis of credibility, then it was important to support these solid evidence and specific examples, such as the time and the age, when all kinds of pressure were needed.
Related judgments — Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal, 2015
