1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant vide letter dated 31‑1‑1985 was conveyed adverse remarks for the period 1‑1‑1982 to 16‑7‑1982. In part III (Integrity) of the ACR he was considered `Below Average' both in (a) General and (b) Intellectual." Similarly in the same Part III(Integrity) 4‑ Acceptance of responsibility was considered below average. It was observed in part IV(8) 6‑(b) Quality was considered below average. In part V he was commented upon as under:‑‑ (a) Rather extraordinary clever and manages his affairs by all possible means, taking full advantage of The weaknesses of all around him. Also he does not apply his intelligence purely on professional and patriotic principles but only to his personal benefits. (b) He did not put his heart and soul in the planning and design work because he always was looking forward to grab a field charge, except that he arranged one computer programme for evaluation of level crossings in the Punjab, from the Computer Centre in the Engineering University. Part VI(b)(iii) Not yet fit for promotion." He filed a representation against the same and was informed by letter dated 14‑5 1985, that his representation dated 10‑2‑1985, has been decided by the competent authority that the adverse remarks contained in his Confidential Report for the period from, 1‑1‑1982 to 10‑7‑1982, in Parts 111(4), Part IV(6‑b), Part‑V(A&C) and Parts VI(b)(iii), stood expunged. However, the remaining adverse remarks contained in Column 3 of Part Ill about Integrity will stand Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant its well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the report of the appellant should have been initiated in the first week of January of the following calendar year but the same has been written after delay of more than two years. According to him this delay has seriously prejudiced th Reporting Officer by subsequent events and also did not clearly recollect about the appellant's working and nature of his duties. It was further submitted that the same Reporting Officer issued a certificate to the appellant that during the period of adverse report, he handled his duty very well including a computerised study of over 150 rail and road crossings in the Punjab, therefore, the said certificate is quite contradictory with the view of the Reporting Officer recorded in the ACR of the appellant. 1t was further argued that during the period the appellant remained all the time confined to pure office and design work and had no administrative charge with him, therefore, he had no chance to indulge in corruption as he had no financial or monetary powers left with him as such the remarks of the Reporting Officer in the column of `Integrity' were totally misconceived. It has been argued that the Reporting Officer had condemned the appellant in all walks of life and had made very serious references about his work and conduct, but the same were not agreed to by the competent authority and all the remarks were expunged except the remark about his `Integrity'.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments so submitted by the Department and also relied on the comments of Mr. Saleem Akhtar Bhalli wherein he has imported his personal knowledge about the performance of the appellant and has prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the assertions of the learned counsel for the appellant are correct to the extent whereas the appellant was painted black in parts IV, V and VI yet the same were not accepted or agreed to by the competent authority and the same were expunged. We have also taken into account the comments of the Reporting Officer, Mr. Saleem Akhtar Bhalli and find that he has observed that it was to his personal knowledge that the a cllant had amassed pp wealth in the form of movable as well as immovable property and probe was required into the same. Unfortunately the said Reporting Officer did not proceed any further when he had personal knowledge about the appellant's wealth, property both movable and immovable, because it was incumbent upon him, its a superior of the appellant, to initiate regular inquiry into his conduct and to prove once for all that he was a person of doubtful integrity. He had clone that the matter would have become clear and the appellant could have a chance to defend himself and if he had been found guilty, he would have lost his service as well. The failure of Mr. Saleem Akluar Bhafli to take this correct and bold step in this matter, has factually made his observation vague and without any positive instance, which he has also failed to quote in this respect. The instructions on this point are very clear that when an adverse assessment of an officer's integrity etc. is made, the same should be fully justified, as the civil servant should not he condemned on the whim and fancy of his superiors. We also find lot of force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the facts of the case reveal that during entire period the appellant was working its Design Officer in the office whereas he had not been dealing with public and had no monetary powers in this respect, therefore, it would be correct to assume that during this period his integrity would not be questioned and if at all his earlier activities are later than the relevant report in question, then the Reporting Officer was under obligator to make a separate report against him to his superiors for conducting a regular inquiry into the matter.

8. The result is we find lot of merits in this appeal and proceed to accept the same, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse entries be g expunged from the ACR of 1982 of the appellant. There will be no order as to I costs. MY.H/219/Sr. P. Appeal allowed.