1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant while serving as Acting Director, Excise and Taxation, Bahawalpur was conveyed the following remarks:‑ "He is plus over the preceding year's collection, whereas minus against the fixed annual targets for the year 1983‑

84. The remarks were treated as adverse and conveyed to the appellant through demi‑official letter dated 13th February 1985. The appellant submitted a representation against these remarks but the same was rejected and the appellant was communicated the decision vide memo: NO.SO.ADMN.(E&T)7‑2/85, dated 16‑6‑19$6.

2. The appellant still feeling not satisfied decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. This appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 4‑8‑1986. The respondent has contested the same, filed the parawise comments/ written objections and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and gone through the relevant record. It is maintained by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned remarks are contradicted by the other entries in the same report. He has specifically referred to the following parts:‑

1. Part II. Personal qualities. (Overall grading 'Good').

2. Part III. Attitudes. (Overall grading 'Average').

3. Part IV. Proficiency. (Overall grading 'Adverage').

4. Part V. (a) Pen‑picture. An experienced Officer, who has been working satisfactorily during the year under report. (c) He is plus over the preceding years' collection; whereas minus against the fixed annual targets for the year 1983‑84.

6. Part VI. General Assessment. (a) Overall grading. (iii) Equal the majority of Officers (Average). (b) Fitness for promotion. (ii) Fit for promotion in his turn. Secondly, it is submitted that the remarks have been treated as adverse illegally and without applying mind.

4. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has maintained that the Reporting Officer has recorded the remarks in accordance with the facts and the same are fully justified.

5. I have considered the arguments of both sides and gone through the complete report for the period from 1‑7‑1983 to 30‑6‑1984. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly maintained that these remarks are contradicted by the remarks recorded in part II, III, IV, V and VI which has already been reproduced in the foregoing para. The second point that the remarks have been illegally recorded. The impugned remarks cannot be called remarks at all what to talk of treating the same as adverse. The so‑called remarks are just the resume of the work of the appellant. If the conclusion is drawn from this resume that it suggests that the appellant was not an efficient civil servant then these remarks are contradicted by the remarks of the countersigning officer, who opined that the appellant is an intelligent and efficient officer.

6. It is clear that the director has recorded these remarks and decided to treat the same as adverse without applying his mind to facts as well as law on the point. This is unbecoming of a good administrator that he should pass orders without applying mind to the fact and without taking into consideration their legal implication. The conclusion is that neither these are remarks nor adverse.

7. The upshot of the discussion is that I accept this appeal and expunge the remarks. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./158/Sr.P Appeal allowed.