1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Sarfraz Ali Shah, storage Officer, Office of the District Food Controller, Gujranwala, has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in Which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, as respondent Lahore, and the, Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore, 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks for the period 1‑4‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984, be expunged. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was communicated adverse entry for the period 20‑5‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984, given to him by the countersigning officer that the appellant was not fit for promotion. He filed representation against the same which was rejected by the Respondent No.l. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the very perusal of the ACR copy of which is placed on record, would show that the appellant, has been either assessed as 'A' or 'B' in almost all the columns of the ACR but nowhere he has been assessed as Below Average i.e. 'C', which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, would not be adverse to his performance. Similarly he has drawn our attention to the pen‑picture given by the Reporting Officer and show that it was favourable to the appellant and at the same time has claimed that he has unblemished record of service and learned counsel for the appellant while pointing to certain columns, has drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the assessment of the countersigning authority in box against the heading 'Better than the majority of officers, which according to him would show that he considered him as such. At the same time the said countersigning authority has changed his mind and then in the second Box heading (equals the majority of officers average) he also signed the same. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the authority was not positive in his mind as to what he should do. While signing the box Fit for promotion, provided in the ACR, firstly he graded him fit for promotion and then suddenly affixed his signature in the box 'not yet fit for promotion. In the end he has considered him an average officer and has given no adverse pen picture against him. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the countersigning authority was fully within his competence to change his mind whenever he so desired, therefore, the entry 'not fit for promotion' be maintained as recorded by the countersigning authority. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant has at his credit almost excellent record of service and has rendered his service as Assistant Food Controller/ District Food Controller, Storage Officer and Rationing Controller, with best of his ability and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. In this manner the entry 'not fit for promotion' seems out of context, particularly when we find that the countersigning authority himself first of all assessed him as better than majority of officers and then at the sametime signed the box which indicates that he was equal to the majority of officers i.e. Average, thereby degrading a bit low than to his earlier assessment. Similarly we find that first of all he signed the box 'fit for promotion' and then suddenly changed his mind and has given him a chit 'not fit for promotion', in these circumstances, we are constrained to observe that the countersigning authority had reasons to change his mind so quickly than it was incumbent upon him to write a few lines while concluding part VII of the ACR. What we find is that part VII the countersigning authority graded him as an average officer, which is not adverse and contrary to the assessment 'not yet fit for promotion'. We also find that the appellant was forced in litigation with regard to allocation of his region in the matter of seniority and ultimately succeeded from this forum. It is on record that the said judgment was not appealed against and was implemented by the Department. There is possibility that the countersigning authority might have taken into his mind that the appellant has forced himself to the said region on the strength of this Tribunal judgment and this might have induced him to change his mind while signing in the relevant box. In our opinion/taking all pros and cons of the case particularly the earlier record of the appellant and his performance against senior jobs so assigned to him by the Government and more so when we find that the same officer is blowing hot and cold in the same breath by putting his signatures in each box, we are convinced in our mind that the assessment so made in the ACR part VI 'not yet fit for promotion' was an after thought and nothing else emanating from sub‑conscious mind of the countersigning authority that the appellant had litigation with the Department on the issue of seniority. 8. In view of the above analysis of the entire history of the case and particularly the performance of the countersigning authority by D signing entries contradictory to each other in the box at one and the same time, we set aside the impugned adverse remarks and direct that the same be expunged from the ACR of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs. A.E. /55‑Sr.P Appeal accepted.