1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑Appellant Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan Swati, presently posted as Director, Export Promotion Bureau, Karachi, has preferred this appeal for expunction of adverse remarks contained in his ACR for the period 1‑4‑1991 to 30‑6‑1991, communicated to him vide letter dated 9‑3‑1993. Being aggrieved, he made departmental representation, dated 31st March, 1993, which remained unresponded and after the expiry of 90 days waiting period, he preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on 28‑7‑1993, under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

2. We have heard the appellant at length. His contention is that he had hardly worked for two months under the reporting officer and not more than three months under the Countersigning Officer and, therefore, the report in question having been written/recorded for less than three months, is violative of Instruction No. 2.24 of "A Guide to Performance Evaluation" and was without lawful authority and entire report is liable to be struck off. He also argued that he is being victimised from time to time with mala fide intention to debar him from future promotion. On merits, he submitted that the reporting officer has given him `overall Grading' as `average' and found him fit for promotion but the countersigning officer without giving any reason found him `Not yet fit for promotion'.

3. The departmental representatives appearing for respondents 2 and 3 frankly submitted that since the report is for a period of less than three months, and the remarks being of advisory nature, such remarks cannot be termed as `adverse' and the report in question covering a period of only two months, cannot be taken into consideration being violative c instruction 2.24

4. Respondents 2 (Secretary, Ministry of Commerce) and 3 (Mr. Shahid Yousuf Baghpattee) have fled comments. The respondent No. 3, who is the reporting officer, in paragraph 1(a) and (b), has stated as under:‑‑ (a) Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan Swati, Ex‑G.M. (Appellant) remained posted in RECP on deputation from 19‑2‑1990 to 30‑11‑1991. The Appellant worked under respondent No. 3 from 18‑3‑91 to 1‑6‑91 i.e. 75 days. This period reckons less than 3 months but the position remains that this was the `maximum' period during which the Appellant worked under ONE single officer in the whole year 1991. Under the circumstances, the Head of the Organisation directed that evaluation report of the Appellant for the period March‑June, 1991 be written by respondent No. 3 being his superior officer during the period under report. (b) None of the remarks recorded in Part V or Part IV of the report is tantamount to "ADVERSE' and, hence the reporting officer (i.e. respondent No. 3) and the Countersigning Officer (i.e. respondent No. 4) held the view that the evaluation made is objective and there is nothing substantial in the appeal to justify re‑evaluation, any consideration for expunction of the said performance report." From the above facts, it is clear that according to the opinion of the reporting officer (respondent No. 3) none of the remarks recorded in Part V or Part IV is `adverse', and the report was written by him under the instructions of the Head of the Organisation (the respondent No. 4 herein) in spite of the fact that the appellant worked under him only for 75 days, and that period was less than three months as admissible under the rules. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent No. 4 (Mr. M. M. Usmani) has not filed comments and as such he has not been able to controvert the assertions and contentions of the appellant and, therefore, it shall be presumed; that the allegations of the appellant against him are not without substance. We also fail to understand as to what was the occasion for the countersigning officer to make the appellant `Not yet fit for promotion' when he has not disagreed with other ratings made by the reporting officer and has not given any plausible or cogent reasons for debarring the appellant from promotion. All this smacks of his bias and non application of proper mind and it cannot be termed as an objective assessment.

5. On legal points also the ACR in question cannot sustain. The ACR, impugned before us, pertains to a period 1‑4‑1991 to 30‑6‑1991 and is admittedly for a period of less than three months as required under rule 2.24 of "A Guide to Performance Evaluation". Under instruction 2.25 ibid, discretion to write confidential reports for a period; less than three months has been withdrawn; and under instruction 2.26 the confidential reports covering a period of less than three months is to be removed from the character roll dossiers of a civil servant. It thus follows that the confidential repot written for a period of less than three months cannot be taken into consideration and have no legal sanctity in the eyes of law and are to be removed from the CR dossier of the appellant.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that we accept the appeal and expunged the remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer, and direct that whole report, impugned before us, shall be taken out of the ACR dossier of the appellant and shall be treated as quashed. AA./919/Sr.F Appeal accepted