1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The second countersigning officer Mr. Hameed Ahmed the concerned Secretary of the Department observed as under:-- "I agree in general with the above assessment. Undependable and shirks responsibility. He has been trying hard to get a posting nearer to his home. He is more interested in his Zamindari rather than his job." Nowhere in the memo of appeal the appellant has alleged that the abovementioned countersigning officers were also prejudiced against him or were on inimical terms with the appellant. These countersigning officers basically belong to Forest Department and have been watching the performance of the appellant since his entry in service in the Forest Department. The other main argument advanced by the appellant's Advocate is that the appellant has been seriously prejudiced as the assessment has come as a surprise to him. The appellant was not counselled before as required vide instruction No.4 V(b) of the instructions printed on the form of A.C.R. It has also been argued that no lapse or dereliction on the part of appellant has been specifically mentioned by the reporting officer which are made the basis for the adverse observations. Both the above arguments are interconnected. It is to be seen if pointing out the lapse, or conveying of displeasure on unsatisfactory performance during the course of official transaction serve the purpose of counselling or not. We hold the same as good as counselling since they put the officer on his guard and make him liable to explain his position as well as require him to be cautious in future. We do not subscribe to the arguments of the learned Advocate of the appellant that counselling on each of the lapse pointed out in the confidential report, should be first communicated to the reported officer through a personal letter for removing the same and improving the standard of performance. Essence of the instruction No.4 is not necessarily an advice in a stenotype letter to the reported officer to improve his tailings. Explanations called for on any official matter, assessment of unsatisfactory work or conveying dissatisfaction through visit notes etc. Also serve the purpose to alert and improve as contemplated in the instructions on the subject of `counselling'. However, in the impugned A.C.R., the reporting officer at the appropriate space has stated that the appellant was counselled `to improve protection of forest without any result'. In the written statement filed by the respondent No.l a good number of letters issued to the appellant right from 1977 to 1983 are exhibited wherein lapses of various nature which are covered in the confidential reports, could be verified. In short confidential report is a sum total of the impressions drawn by the reporting officer about the performance of the officer under his administrative charge and he is not expected to be elaborative and exhaustive for each of his impressions in the A.C.R. The very fact that other countersigning officers who were quite impartial and bore no grudge against the appellant, which is also admitted by him not only endorsed the views of the reporting officer but even went ahead to record their adverse opinion about the appellant. The contention that the appellant was victim of bias and prejudice of the reporting officer is therefore, not sustainable. The appeal No.86/88 has been filed seeking quashment of adverse remarks of 1984. This is the second consecutive adverse report since remarks obtained in 1983 have already been discussed at length in the foregoing paras. This adverse evaluation has been recorded by Mr. Shaukat Ali Arain-Conservator of Forests, and communicated to the appellant in September, 1987 under the orders of Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi who was holding the acting charge of the Secretary Forest Department, Government of Sindh. The impugned adverse remarks read as under:-- (1) Fitness for promotion ... Unlikely to progress further. (2) Remarks of the Countersigning Officer. There were adverse reports of mal-administration and corruption against him and it was on this account that the Minister Incharge of the Department, Head of the Department and Head of Attached Department transferred him from a territorial/executive charge to an office job. (3) Remarks of the Second Countersigning Officer. I agree with the above assessment. He needs to be watched constantly A careful reading of the above remarks would indicate that the observations made by the reporting officer and further views expressed by the countersigning officer not necessarily mirror the current lapses, but even the cumulative impact of the past unsatisfactory performance. It is for these reasons the Annual Confidential Reports normally do not give specific details of the lapses on each personal trait. The departmental appeal/representation of the appellant was therefore, rejected mainly on the grounds that "the remarks in question were based on the objective assessment of the performance of the representationist (appellant)." The objective assessment of the reporting and countersigning officers in the ordinary course is the consequential formulation of the opinion based on their past experience and reputation of the officer. In the memo. of appeal it has been asserted that remarks viz. `unlikely to progress further' communicated to the appellant find no mention in the report submitted by the Department to the appropriate Selection Board for appellant's move-over from B.S.18 to B.S. 19 in the year 1985. In the written statement the respondent No. l (Secretary to Government of Sindh Forest Department) has denied the relevant contents of para. 8 of the memo of appeal and to substantiate the adverse nature of the A.C.R. 1984 annexed the minutes of the relevant Selection Board which while refusing move over to the appellant made the following observations: "The Board however, did not clear Mr. Bashir Ahmed Nizamani for move over to BS-19 due to his patchy service record including adverse remarks in his 1983 and 1984 A.C.Rs. The Board further noted that his quantification for `Integrity' was only 55 against the minimum required score of 60." It appears the late communication of the adverse remarks has created some doubt about the exact entries in the A.C.R. 1984 in the mind of the appellant who has asserted that the abnormally late communication of the adverse entries, was violative of the instructions /Rules on the subject. To beef up his arguments he has cited the relevant observations made by the Tribunal in the appeal of Rana Abdul Waheed v. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and others reported in 1987 F L C (C.S.)

434. The learned Advocate lost sight of the fact that the remarks offered in the A.C.R. 1984 were the objective assessment of the performance of the appellant based on patchy service record. It does not lose much of its impact even if the same is communicated late. The timely communication of adverse remarks as a matter of fact is insisted upon, to provide opportunity to the reported officer to improve to the subsequent years: This purpose was already served when adverse remarks of the previous year 1983 were communicated in time. Even in the reported case of this Tribunal referred to above in the appeal, the learned Chairman of this Tribunal has observed that `it was only in event of persistence of reports of same nature in consequential years that cumulative impact of all such reports influenced competent authorities in respect of Civil Servants concerned'. Again in this case the reporting officer as well as the first and' second countersigning officers are impartial officers against whom no bias or prejudice is alleged by the appellant. Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi does not appear anywhere in this impugned year. The argument is that since two previous Secretaries during the period 1985 and then in 1987 did not communicate any remarks, the same cannot be held as adverse by the Government. In the year 1984, there may be reasons like the traditional lethargy and red tapism for not communicating these remarks. The under-mentioned observations in the impugned A.C.R. are self -speaking. (a) Unlikely to progress further. (b) He was shifted to office charge from the territorial and executive charge by the Minister concerned on the adverse reports of mal-administration. (c) Needs to be watched constantly. The above remarks by all standards do not paint a happy picture. These, remarks on the contrary indicate the adverse opinion in-printed over the years in the minds of his superiors. For such a situation none else but the appellant can be held responsible. As in the third Appeal No.91 of 1988 the appellant has approached this Tribunal for the quashment of adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for 1986. The adverse remarks as communicated to the appellant read as under:--

1. Integrity (c) General (d) (b) Intellectual Below average Below average 2.Financial Responsibility Below average.

3. Work Output Quality Below average. Below average. Pen picture: In an initial enquiry you have been held responsible of mismanagement and financial loss by overcharging more than Rs. twenty thousand or account of transportation of forest material in Maroo Kotri Forest, bag conversion of forest material and other things in the forest development under your charge. In another case, there is a disciplinary action in process against you for departmental exploitation of Devi in violation of Government policy and against the instructions of the Conservator of Forests, Utilization Circle. You also discouraged competition in forest auctions. Counselling: You were repeatedly advised to improve your working but with no effect. Assessment of performance: You repeatedly recommended lower bids'. It has been assailed by the appellant that the above impugned adverse report is to a great extent the reflection of the adverse report of 1983 since both these reports are identical and are initiated by Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi who for reasons not explained, spared no opportunity to tarnish his service record. Incidentally in this appeal as well, no enmity or dispute has been imputed against Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi to establish mala fides on his part. However, to bring home his plea, the appellant's Advocate stressed that the appellant earned good A-report in 1985

the intervening year between 1983 and 1984 and again in the following year 1987, mainly because the appellant's reports in these years were not initiated by Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi. A careful examination of the personae file of the appellant, however, reveals, that those very officers viz. Mr. T.A. Ansari and Mr. Hameed Ahmed Chief Conservator of Forests and Secretary, Forests who endorsed adverse reports or recorded adverse opinion as countersigning officers in 1983 and 1984, gave the appellant satisfactory report when they initiated the A.C.R. in 1985. At least this establishes an impartial assessment at the hands of these two officers and goes to establish that they are not biased against the appellant. Incidentally the adverse A.C.R. 1986, which has been impugned is countersigned by these two very officers. Mr. TA. Ansari has not fully agreed with the remarks of Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi, yet at the same time did not exonerate him of the adverse traits when he recorded his opinion in the following words:-- "The officer is not so bad as depicted by the Reporting Officer. Mr. Hameed Ahmed, Secretary Forest Department, Government of Sindh countersigned the report without making any favourable observations. He, on the contrary directed the communication of the adverse remarks (underlined by him with red ink) to the reported officer for future improvement. If the satisfactory reports earned from the above officers could be quoted by the appellant to prove bias on the part of Mr. Sirhindi what explanation does the appellant have for the adverse observations made by these very officers as countersigning officers who were competent and senior enough to disagree with Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi and nothing has restrained them from recording favourable remarks to wash off the impact of adverse evaluation of the reporting officer. The respondent No.l viz. Secretary, Forest Department Government of Sindh, in his written statement has however disagreed with the contention of the appellant that the adverse remarks of 1983 and '1986 are similar. It has been asserted by the respondent's advocate that the remarks of the A.C.R. for the year 1986 relate to the appellant's acts of omission and commission as D.F.O. Utilization Division, Thatta and for which he was also charge-sheeted. It has also been argued that the assertions about the good performance on recoveries as mentioned in the memo of appeal were already considered by the competent authorities and found unsatisfactory. In the written statement it has also been impressed that the adverse remarks on integrity and financial responsibilities even find support from the vigilance team of the Accountant-General Sindh, Karachi. To sum up, in view of the above discussions no reasons are seen to hold that the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.Rs. of 1983, 1984 and 1986 are perfunctory in nature and are not based on facts or they are the product of biased mind of the reporting officer Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi. The Annual Confidential Report of 1984 was neither initiated nor was countersigned by Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi. The countersigning officers in some years have identified the lapses of the appellant and in certain years had also appreciated the satisfactory performance in certain spheres of duties of the appellant. The countersigning officer have not only endorsed the views of the reporting officer in the year 1983; 1984 and 1986 but even made their personal adverse observations, thereby leaving no room to suspect the bona fides of the reporting officers. Accordingly for the above reasons the request for expunction of remarks does not merit consideration and all the three appeals mentioned above are, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. M.Y.H./238/Sr.S Appeal dismissed.