1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. The appellant was serving as Headmistress in F.G. Girls School, COD, Kala (Jhelum) when she was conveyed adverse remarks recorded in her A.C.R. for the year 1994 vide letter dated 17‑5‑194$.. She made a representation for expunction of the adverse remarks on the ground that the reporting officer had seen her work only for a period of` less than 90 days only. However, her representation was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 24‑7‑1995. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was posted under the reporting officer on 1‑4‑1994. She remained on medical leave from 16‑4‑1994 to 30‑4‑1994 and from 4‑6‑1994 to 14‑8‑1994, she was on summer vacation. Thus she joined duty on 21‑8‑1994 after availing casual leave for three days combined with Eid holidays. Again she remained on medical leave from. 3‑9‑1994 to 31‑12‑1994. Her posting order dated 18‑10‑1994 from Kala to Jhelum was issued during her medical leave. The learned counsel contended that even otherwise her period of work under the reporting officer is less than 90 days. As such the report on appellant's work cannot have been written according to rule 2.24(i) and (ii) of "A Guide to Performance Evaluation", which clearly lay down that the period spent on leave will not be included in the period "more than three months" and the period of three months will mean and include the actual period in which the work, performance and conduct of an officer has been seen by the reporting officer. But we find that this is not the position in this case. The appellant, as contended by her counsel, had actually worked under the reporting, officer for less than 3 months. The departmental representative however, invited our attention to their objections to paras. 2 and 3, wherein it is mentioned that in deference to the Federal Service Tribunal desire, the appellant's absence from duty during 1994 was regularised as under:‑‑ Period No. of days 12‑2‑1994 to 14‑3‑1994 15 days 16‑3‑1994 to 25‑3‑1994 10 days 4‑6‑1994 to 4‑8‑1994 Summer Vacation 3‑9‑1994 to 16‑9‑1994 14 days 18‑9‑1994 to 12‑11‑1994 56 days 4‑12‑1994 to 31‑12‑1994 28 days This period though regularised for the purpose of duty cannot be included in the actual period in which the work, performance and conduct of the officer has been seen by the reporting officer as required by rule 2.24(ii) of "A Guide to Performance Evaluation". That being so the contention of the learned counsel is full of substance. Thus the period of actual work being less than three months, it has no value at all. It was held in 1985 PLC (C.S.) 432 that adverse remarks by a reporting officer supervising the work of an officer reported upon for less than three months, have no value whatsoever and such remarks deserve to be expunged.

3. In these circumstances, since the impugned report was incompetently recorded, we are of the opinion that the impugned A.C.R. deserves to be taken out of the file and is not to be considered for any purpose whatsoever. We therefore, accept the appeal and direct the respondents that the impugned A.C.R. should be taken out of the file and a copy of this order be placed on the A.C.R. dossiers of the appellant.

4. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./10/Sr.F Appeal accepted.