1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Adverse remarks‑‑Expression 'needs to be watched' recorded in Annual Confidential Report, held, was not adverse. Ghulam Ahmad Bhatti, the appellant a Junior Clerk in D.C's. office Sheikhupura wants expunction of what has been described as an adverse entry in his A.C.R. for the year 1975. The reporting officer that year the then Assistant Commissioner Sadar Sheikhupura gave the remark. "Needs to be watched" against the column "Integrity", sub‑column incorruptible/Reported to be corrupt". Having exhausted all available Departmental forums, including a reference to the reporting officer himself who saw no reason to change the entry the appellant has knocked at the doors of this Tribunal.

2. We have heard the parties and also gone through the record. The directions for writing ACR state that an entry meant to be adverse should be described as such by the reporting officer who should underline it in red ink. This is to indicate that the entry is to be conveyed to the official reported upon. It seems that in this case the remark was supposed to be adverse but the directions were not strictly followed. Moreover, had the remark been more precise, or even less vague, we might perhaps have been able to arrive at a conclusion about its justification or otherwise. In the present case, however, it is arguable whether the entry is adverse at all and makes us wonder if the appellant is not expending his time money and energy on a chase after the immaterial.

3. As cases relating to remarks in the A. C.Rs. are not infrequently before this Tribunal, we might appropriately stress the need for greater care in writing up these reports. The directions to the reporting officers call for clear and unambiguous entries, among other things. An expression like "needs to be watched" may be construed to mean anything. In the context of the appellant's job at that time that of an Ahmad a cynic may well take it as a caution to watch and ensure that the official was not being unduly honest. The record in the instant case shows that the same reporting officer the same year recorded the very same entry "Needs to be watched" in the case of four other officials. Neither in the case of the appellant nor in that of those four, did he make corresponding remarks about their integrity in the general remark column or elsewhere in the A.C.Rs.

4. We would impress upon the authorities concerned to remind the reporting officers of their duty in this behalf and to make them realise the need for clarity and unequivocation in writing up ACRs and their timely communication to the concerned officials. In view of the above we are not inclined towards judging the remark in question as adverse, and dispose of the appeal with the above observations. M.Y.H./170/Sr.P Order accordingly.