1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Mr. Maqsood Ahmad Malik, Superintending Engineer/ Director Review, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, has filed this appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power department, Lahore, as respondent. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks pertaining to the period from 1-1-1984 to 31-3-1984 and 14-5-1984 to 3-6-1984, wherein he was described as 'a quiet officer with inflexible attitudes,' be expunged. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks so given to him in his ACR for the year 1984, vide letter dated 4-3-1985. He filed a representation to the next higher authority and after waiting for a period of 90 days when no decision had been conveyed to him, he has filed this appeal before is. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned 'District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the remarks would be unjustified as the same mere inconsistent with the remarks of the same officer in the same A. C. R. By elaborating the arguments he has submitted that in Part II of ACR Form a specific column viz. Column No.4 'Adaptability' has been provided by the Rule making Authority to enable the Reporting Officers to express their views about an officer in this respect. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the Reporting Officer has graded the appellant as 'B' in the said column, therefore, the appellant was not rigid or inflexible, then the Reporting Officer could have utilized this column for recording his view. However, he did not report him as 'inflexible' in this specific column, and instead he graded him as 'B'. Therefore, the Reporting Officer once having reported him as flexible in the specified column Nb.4, he could not have reported him as inflexible in the column of 'Pen picture'. He has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in case No.369/1003 of 1984--Majeed Hussain Rehmani, Director Roads, C&W Department v. Secretary to Government of the, Punjab, Communication and Works Department. In the said case similar position raised and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal expunged the remarks on this very premises. He has relied on the case of Muzaffar Iqbal which was decided on the basis of the aforesaid case of Majeed Hussain Rehmani. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted that the same would show that-the remarks were fully justified. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the ACR also, and find that in Part II of the ACR with heading 'personal quality' column 4 relates to adaptability. This column has been analysed as 'AI', 'A' 'B', 'C' and D'. In this column we find that the same Reporting Officer has categorised the adaptability of the appellant as 'B' whereas in the end of the column, it is clearly indicated that where the appellant was rigid and inflexible, he should categorise him either as 'C' or 'D'. On the reverse we find that in Part V while giving Pen Picture, it has been clearly observed as under: "Please comment on any particularly strong or week points without repeating earlier parts of the report. Also indicate the future posting considered most suitable for the officer." Despite this clear indication on this point, the Reporting Officer was not permitted to report what he had already observed in Part II Column 4, but factually he has repeated the said quality contradictory to his earlier observation. Such like matter came before this Tribunal in case of Majeed Hussain Rehmani v. Secretary Communication and Works Department, Punjab, wherein we observed as under:- "We have also examined columns 5 and 6 of the ACR which? pertain to the quality and supervision of work and find that the appellant has not been adversely commented upon but entry against the said column is good. Similarly same is the case with column No.12 which relates .to his personality and find that in the said column he has been considered as a person of good personality. In view of these established facts on record we do not find any justification for the Reporting Officer or the second countersigning authority to give adverse opinion against their own opinion which was favourable to the appellant in the specified columns. It is a matter of fundamental principle of consistency which should always prevail in the matter of recording ACR that the Reporting Officer or the countersigning authority should not be inconsistent in their opinion in the same breath. If a person has been considered as having good personality in the specified column, there will be hardly any justification, for the same officer to declare him an unimpressive person. Similarly a particular column declared personal work as good the same cannot be controverted while writing the pen picture about the said officer." In view of the above observation in Majeed Hussain Rehmani's case which was followed in case of Muzaffar lqbal, we are of the considered opinion that the adverse remarks conveyed to him, would be actually a contradiction on the part of the Reporting Officer to stand in the ACR, which would be absolutely unjustified. 8. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks so impugned be expunged from the ACR of the appellant forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. WI.Y.H./213/Sr.P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.