1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the year 1971. He filed Departmental Appeal for expunction of the same which was rejected by final Order dated 2‑3‑1986. He has now filed this appeal before us for the expunction of the said remarks.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully‑ with their assistance.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Reporting Officer was having strained relations with the appellant and due to that reason he attempted to victimize the appellant. He has also submitted that once the appellant had to take legal recourse against the malicious orders of the Reporting Officer. He has narrated the details of the inimical treatment towards appellant by submitting that appellant was entrusted with the additional charge of Hostel Superintendent which entailed huge work but appellant had to express his inability to perform additional duties due to his bad health. Similarly, Reporting Officer ordered appellant's ejectment from College hostel which was also resisted by having a recourse to Court of Law. He has further submitted that there was no complaint against him from any quarter and he had his full share of extra curricular activities in the college. It has further been submitted that the allegation of subversive activities was a serious charge and there was no material to support such a charge. Lastly it has been argued that the very tone and tenor of the remarks is such that the Reporting Officer had gone out of the way and had become personal in recording these remarks. He has therefore submitted that the bias of the Reporting Officer is evident from the remarks themselves.

6. Appellant has also relied upon para 34 of the instructions regarding writing of A. C. Rs. and communication of adverse remarks and has submitted that inordinate delay in the writing of A.C.R. and communication of adverse remarks has vitiated the impugned orders and has also caused serious prejudice. He has also made it a point that the delay in itself smacks of the bias of the Reporting Officer.

7. The learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments and has stated that the Reporting Officer has given his views on the basis of the actual working of the appellant and no exception can be taken to it at this stage.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have also scrutinized the relevant record produced by the Department at the time of the arguments. What we find is that the Director of Education, Lahore has examined the case at his level and has recorded the following views/recommendations:‑ "Mr. Shami had represented against the adverse remarks for 1971 to D.E(C) Rawalpindi Region, Rawalpindi. The remarks in columns 2, 4, 11(B), 18, 19 & 20 were expunged, whereas the others were allowed to stand. He appears to have submitted another representation explaining his position with regard to the rest of the adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for 1971. The Reporting Officer Prof. S.M. Hussain Jafri was requested to give his comments. He has endorsed his earlier assessment about the officer's conduct and performance and finds no reason to change his views about the behaviour of the officer at that time. From the perusal of the explanation submitted by Mr. Shami it appears that the entire report was written, based on some personal differences cropping up between the Principal and the Lecturer concerned. The defence presented by Mr. Shami needs sympathetic consideration. The adverse remarks contained in the A.C.R. have partly been expunged by the D.E.(C) Rawalpindi Region, Rawalpindi. The remarks expunged relate judgment and sense of proportion, power of expression, sense of responsibility in financial matters, interest in social welfare, interest in economic development and behaviour with public. These expunged remarks are most important factors to assess the conduct and behaviour of an employee. Hence the Pen‑picture should not carry any weight in view of the expunction of above remarks. It is therefore recommended that this report be considered‑to have been expunged in toto."

9. Keeping in view the assessment of a senior officer of the status of Head of Department we have no hesitation to accept the plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the remarks are biased. As regards bias, law is settled that bias vitiates everything and that malicious order is no order in the eye of law. The instructions regarding writing of A.C.Rs. particularly warned the Reporting Officers in the following terms:‑ "30 Manner of writing reports.‑‑The opinion expressed should be the result of careful consideration; no personal bias, ire or favouritism should colour the report." No material has been placed on record to show that the recommendations of the Head of Department do not make a correct appraisal of the situation. Therefore, we have no reason to ignore these recommendations .

10. We therefore proceed to accept the appeal set aside the impugned orders and expunge the adverse remarks from Appellant's A.C.R. for the year 1971. There will be no orders as to costs. A.E./68/Sr.S Appeal accepted.