1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Madad Khan serving as Veterinary Officer Health, has challenged adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.Rs. for the years, 1973, 1974, 1980 and 1983 by respondent No.l. His representations against the same were also rejected by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 28-10-1987. According to him he was serving as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the year, 1972-73 at Spin-Wam; North Waziristan Agency. The then Assistant Director Animal Husbandry Bannu; under whose administrative control the appellant was working, was displeased with him and he recorded adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the year, 1973 which were conveyed to him in the last week of August, 1974 and the appellant forthwith filed a representation to the Government, as the remarks were countersigned by the Director. Representation is annexure "A" and the appeal dated 26-8-1974 is annexure 111311. No reply was given to him when in the meanwhile the appellant received the adverse remarks for the year, 1974 per D.O. letter No.8463 dated 24-6-1975 by the same officer and countersigned by the respondent No.2. Copy of the same is annexure "C". He submitted a representation within time and the copy dated 20-7-1975 is annexure "D". Respondents Nos.2 and 3 did not decide the said A.C.R. and the appellant was given adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the year, 1980. Copy annexure "E" was received by the appellant on 25-3-1981. Copy of the representation filed by him vide letter No.90 dated. 30-3-1981 is annexure "F". The appellant was asked by respondent No.3 to make another representation in respect of the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the year, 1980 vide letter copy annexure "G", so the compliance was made vide copy of the representation annexure "H" dated 6-5-1981. No action was taken by the respondents on the above-referred A.C.Rs. and another D.O. letter was addressed to him containing the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. for the year, 1983 in the last week of July; 1984. Copy is annexure "J". He submitted the representation, copy annexure "J/1". He was informed by respondent No.2 through letter dated 28-11-1984 that he should wait for the decision. Copy is annexure "K". He requested verbally and in writing to respondents Nos.2 and 3 through respondent No.l. A copy of one such request is annexure "K/1". Respondent No.2 submitted his comments on the said A.C.Rs. to respondent No.3 declaring all the representations as timebarred except that of 1983. Copy of the letter is annexure "K/2". Faced with these circumstances appellant addressed respondent No.3 through proper channel, giving history of all the representations, copy of the letter is annexure "K /3" and copy of the verification letter by respondent No.l is "K/4" which shows that the representations submitted by the appellant were within time. Finally the confusion came to an end when respondent No.3 rejected his representations after a delay of over 15 years vide letter dated 28-10-1987; copy annexure "L". According to him the adverse remarks were unfounded, unjustified, mala fide and ambiguous. These were not communicated to him within time and his representations were also not decided by the respondents within time. Nothing was pointed out to him for improvement and his juniors have superceded him, due to the conduct of the respondents. Respondent No.l and the remaining two respondents submitted separate written replies. Respondent No.l furnished no comments qua paras Nos.l to 11 and 13 while in reply to para No.12 he added that after verification of the record by him it was found that the representations were submitted by the appellant within time. On the other hand respondents Nos.2 and 3 controverted the appeal by stating that the appellant was rightly given adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs. for the period mentioned in the appeal. The representations submitted by the appellant were not within time. The adverse remarks given to him by four different officers under whom the appellant worked. The appellant did not deserve good remarks and the countersigning officer had to rely on the assessment of the reporting officers. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been treated very harshly. He joined the department in the year, 1968 and the adverse remarks given to him by his superior officers did not reflect the true picture. These were mala fide and the result of personal vengeance. Appellant suffered a lot on account of the adverse remarks, as during this period many junior officers were promoted, superseding the appellant. The reply by the respondents took 15 years. On the other hand learned Special Government Pleader argued that the representations were not submitted by the appellant well within time. The adverse remarks were not given to him by one officer but by different officers. The respondents have no illwill against him and they were justified in giving the said remarks due to the conduct, behaviour and performance of the appellant. We have given our patient hearing to the arguments, advanced by both the sides and perused the record. It is indeed not appreciating if a Government Servant receives adverse remarks for 4 years, even though the period is not continuous. However, the record is silent to prove that any warning or advice was given to him for the period of the comments under reference. There 'was no counselling by the superior officers. It is worth mentioning to note that one of the officers who gave him adverse remarks was Dr. Abdul Waheed, Assistant Director. Apparently he served under him for the year, 1974-75 and for both the years his performance has been adversely commented upon in different boxes. No adverse remarks were conveyed to him for the year, 1975 and there is no A.C.R. present on the record for the year, 1976. It is missing from the relevant file. For the year, 1973 the appellant appears to be under some other officer who gave him the adverse remarks, however, the A.C.R. for the year, 1977, 1978 and 1979 were all good excepting a few boxes. He remained under Dr. Masood Arshad from 1978 to 1980 and the A.C.R. for the period 1981 and 1982 were given to him by one Bashir Ahmad and Mehmood-ur-Rehman. Both were average and above average. However, the A.C.R. for the year, 1983 was also given by Dr. Mehmood-ur-Rehman which is subject-matter of the present appeal. The A.C.Rs. for the remaining period would show that the officer has been commented upon favourably. A perusal of the A.C.R. for the year, 1974 would show that it has been not countersigned by the countersigning officer i.e. Director Animal Husbandry, same is the case qua A.C.R. for the year, 1975. A.C.R. not countersigned by the officer has got no value in the eyes of law. Because every countersigning officer is bound to give reasons of his agreement or disagreement with the reporting officer under his signatures. This error cannot be rectified later on. So far as the other impugned A.C.Rs. are concerned although they were countersigned but no reason was given by the countersigning officer of his agreement with the reporting officer. A.C.R. is a very precious document and on it the career of an officer depends. If an officer in fact deserves adverse remarks he must be given the same, but it is the duty of the reporting officer to have a check on him for the period he is given the remarks. He must check his work. If he is a field officer make a tour in order to obtain the views of the masses. He must also see whether any complaint in writing was made by any person from public against him, if it is so; whether it has been investigated by him or not. If a complaint is oral, he must examine the person in support of it. It is amazing to note that one of the reporting officers had given him good remarks in the A . C . R . , other than the impugned one. Even warning and counselling administered upon him is not sufficient. There must be something on the record to prove it. The adverse remarks must be supported by some cogent and visible material which in the instant case is lacking. So far as the plea of limitation alleged by the respondents is concerned, we with the assistance of the learned counsel have thoroughly checked the record and found that allegation is baseless. Their plea was that the representations were received late in the office of respondent No.2. However, it is quite clear that the appellant addressed the said representations to the quarter concerned through Assistant Director i.e. respondent No.l within time. It takes time for a correspondence to reach the final destination. The appellant cannot be blamed for the delay. The result of the above discussion is that the adverse remarks given to the officer concerned were not proper. and accordingly we accept the present appeal by directing that the adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs. be expunged. Parties are left to bear their own cost. File be consigned to the record room. S. Q. /79/Sr.N Appeal accepted