ISLAMABAD, Nov 20: The Supreme Court has observed that there is a growing trend among the reporting officers and countersigning officers to abstain from recording adverse remarks, even against the corrupt and inefficient officers “for some reasons.”

The Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqi, after discussing the rationale of recording Annual Confidential Report (ACR), held that the reluctance on the part of reporting officers and countersigning officers was contributing to the destruction of institutions.

The Supreme Court in its latest judgment in a case titled Civil Appeal No 1505/1506 of 1997, Engineer Jameel Ahmed Malik versus Pakistan Ordinance Factory Wah Cantt, ruled: “This lack on the part of higher authorities is a contributory factor towards corruption and inefficiency and must be eliminated to help the system work smoothly.”

The apex court observed that experience showed that there was growing inclination among the reporting officers and countersigning officers to abstain from recording adverse remarks even against corrupt and inefficient officers for some reasons.

“One reason can be that the officers do not want to displease anybody. Secondly, they feel highly embarrassed when they are called upon to substantiate their adverse remarks.”

The court held that reporting officers, and countersigning officers must exercise restraint in acting on the basis of discredited information, but at the same time they should convey the true picture about the real performance of officer concerned objectively.

The reports of the reporting officers, and countersigning officers, unless proved contrary by a strong piece of evidence, must be accepted as true and having legal and moral sanction behind it. “Acceptance of such reports shall be a rule and rejection an exception.”

The apex court held that in case of conflict between the reports of reporting officer, and countersigning officer, the entire personal file must be thoroughly scrutinized and weighed keeping in view the intrinsic value of the material available on record for evaluating the correctness and propriety of the remarks recorded in the ACR. “The remarks of the higher authority as a rule command more respect, and cannot be equated with that of reporting officer.”