1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

4. The sole point which requires consideration is as to whether the above‑noted remarks should be treated as adverse or not.

5. After careful consideration of the arguments advanced by both sides we are of the considered view that the remark in question ought not have been treated as adverse for reasons mentioned below:‑‑ (a) Perusal of paragraph No. 4 of the Instructions for filling of the A.C.R. form would indicate that the Reporting Officer was expected to counsel the officer being reported upon about his weak points and advise him to improve and that adverse remarks could only be recorded when that officer failed to in prove despite the counselling. In the present case no such procedure was adopted before communicating the impugned remarks to the appellant. (b) We have given our most anxious thought to the impugned remark and find that it cannot be regarded as an adverse entry in the record. In this connection it would be worthwhile to mention that Items Nos. (II) and (III) of Chapter (b) "fitness for promotion" in Part VI of A.C.R. form should be read together and not in isolation since both the same are inter related. Item II "fit for promotion" indicated the state when the officer was found to be fit for promotion on his turn and not out of turn whereas item No. III "not yet fit for promotion" very distinctly pointed to the state where the officer concerned could not be considered for promotion with immediate effect scanning thereby that the officer was not fit for promotion for want of requirement of the Departmental Promotion Committee but it could not be possibly stretched to say that his record being satisfactory, he was not fit for promotion. At this juncture we may refer to para. 4 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent which contained the following comments of the Reporting Officer: "As far as I recall the case for promotion etc, of Moula Bux Khushik was sent after encounter in which the notorious ‑dacoit Ali Nawaz Brohi was killed. However, the case was rejected by the Government." It has, therefore, become crystal clear that the appellant's case for accelerated promotion having been turned down, the impugned entry was maintained in A.C.R. as by that time the appellant had not become fit for promotion. Apart from that the appellant having been promoted as Superintendent of Police in 1986, had not completed the statutory period of service to become eligible for further promotion as Deputy Inspector‑General of Police and as such the natural consequence thereof could be nothing but to say that he was not yet fit for promotion. (c) We have found that two comments of the Countersigning Officer existed on the record for the said two periods which go along way to establish that the impugned remark could not at all be designated as adverse remark. In his comments Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Malik, the Countersigning Officer for the period from 16‑7‑1987 to 31‑12‑1987 shad observed as under: "No remarks were intended as adverse in the A.C.R. under reference, I wonder how it was decided to convey "needs to learn and improve his administration /management force" (not communicated to appellant) as adverse remarks. At best it could be conveyed as an advice and no representation lies against such advice. Mr. Moula Bux Khushik is a well built, well‑honest and very obedient type of officer. I am sure by now he must have improved a lot. As stated earlier my remarks were not intended to be treated as adverse. The competent authority is well-come to dilate them please." It seems that the Departmental Authority had communicated the underlined remarks to the Reporting Officer for comments which seems to be more weighty than the impugned remarks but that too seemed to have been waived on account of the comments of the Countersigning Officer. In any case the Countersigning Officers' comments/assessment for the same period being relevant, we are not inclined to believe that the Reporting Officer could have intended to regard the impugned remark "not yet fit for promotion" as adverse.

6. So far as the comments for the period from 9‑4‑1990 to 20‑8‑1990 were concerned, Syed Saadat Ali Shah, then Inspector‑General of Police, Sindh, Karachi, commented as under: (Letter No. ACR‑PS‑DY/93, dated 16‑12‑1993): "Mr. Moula Bux Khushik is a mature officer and took keen interest in his work. According to the laid down standard he is fit in all respects for promotion/mote‑over." That being the case; the impugned remark could not be treated as adverse remark.

7. Above all the letters of appreciations and recommendations for accelerated promotion produced alongwith memo of appeal viz. Annexures `B‑1' to B‑15' indicated that appellant had sufficiently satisfactory record of service and as such the impugned remarks could not be stretched so as to be treated as adverse remarks.

8. In view of the above noted circumstances the learned A.A.G. also very candidly conceded that the impugned remark was not adverse one.

9. Aforementioned reasons have been recorded for acceptance of the appeal by short order dated 23‑11‑1994, which is reproduced below: "Appellant and his counsel Mr. Zia Makhdoom present. Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, A.A.‑G. also present. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant documents with assistance of the said counsel. For reasons to be recorded later on, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the remarks sought to be expunged in the appeal are declared as not adverse. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./592/Sr:S Appeal accepted.