1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A. RASHID KHAN SHERWANI (MEMBER):

‑This appeal arises from the adverse remarks contained in the ACR of the appellant for the period from 11‑3‑1991 to 17‑9‑1991. On receiving the adverse remarks, the appellant filed a departmental appeal to the Chief Secretary and having received no reply from him in 90 days' statutory period, he filed this appeal.

2. The appellant worked as Divisional Forest Officer, Guddu Barrage, Afforestation Division, Mirpur Mathelo, during this period. The appellant contends that the adverse remarks are based on mala fide intention because the respondent No. 1 held an enquiry against him in 1977 and on the basis of which he was dismissed from service. This order was later on set aside by this Tribunal on appeal. Earlier also the adverse remarks were given by the respondent No. 1 and those were set aside by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 4 of 1992. A false case was also filed against the appellant by the respondents with the Anti‑Corruption Establishment. In this case also he was honourably acquitted by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sukkur. The appellant argues that the second episode is still fresh in the mind of the respondent No.

1. The appellant further pleads that on account of these reasons, he was always deliberately posted against unattractive posts. However, he was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Guddu Barrage, Afforestation Division, Mirpur Mathelo, for a short period from 11‑3‑1991 to 17‑9‑1991. He argues that no adverse remarks arc given in parts II, III, IV and VI of the ACR form and, according to him, they are good. He says that adverse remarks arc in part V(a) and (c). The adverse remarks in part V are contradictory because no adverse remarks have been given in columns 12 and 13 of Part III. These columns relate to relations with officers, colleagues, subordinates and behaviour with public. According to the appellant the adverse remarks against him regarding high‑handedness, malpractices and mismanagement, are based on mala fide intention, supposition, conjecture, connection and misconception of opinion.

3. The respondents in their written statement have denied the allegations of mala fide intention. They state that the ACR was written by Mr. Shamsul Haq Memon, Conservator of Forest. Afforestation Circle. Sukkur, and was countersigned by Mr. Afzal Haq, Chief Conservator of Forest, Sindh, and the respondent No. 1, signed it as a countersigning officer. It was the countersigning officer who had recorded the adverse remarks, which were based on the ground that there were many complaints against him. In this connection, the respondents have attached five annexures. They further state that the appellant was dismissed from service on the charges of inefficiency and misconduct. The respondent No. 1, who was the Enquiry Officer, exonerated him of some charges, but on some charges he was found guilty. On appeal, the Sindh Service Tribunal had only converted his punishment of dismissal from service into reduction in rank for a period of three years and treated the impugned period as extraordinary leave without pay. So far as posting to unattractive places is concerned, they say that it is done under the orders of the Minister. They assert that although there are no adverse remarks in parts II, III, IV and VI of the ACR forms, yet they are not also good ones. They are simply average.

4. Bringing in the arguments, the appellant dwelt upon the theme of mala fide intention on the part of the respondent No.

1. Anyhow, he did not bring forth any cogent ground to sustain his contention. That the respondent No. 1 conducted an enquiry against him and found him guilty of some charges, does not, ipso facto, imply that he had turned hostile against the accused. Nor did he raise any such plea at the time of enquiry. Similarly, any case against the appellant in the Anti‑Corruption Establishment does not prove the mala rides of the respondent No.

1. Although adverse remarks have not been recorded in parts II, III, IV and VI, yet these arc average. The reporting officer has maintained consistency in the writing of the report. It is on the whole an average one which obviously does not speak high of the appellant.

5. The adverse remarks recorded by the countersigning officer and communicated to the appellant vide Forest Fisheries and Livestock Department, D.O. Letter No. FF&L (SOI)‑6(8)/1991, dated the 9th March, 1992, read as under:‑‑ "Creates problems for himself and others working with him and for his superiors. In short period of 7 months while he was DFO, Guddu Barrage Division he created hell for the lower staff, public and all concerned with the forest; There were chain of complaints of serious nature against him regarding high handedness, malpractice and mismanagement:"

6. We heard the appellant and the learned pleader for the respondents in detail and also perused the various documents produced before us. We are of the considered view that there was no proof on record to warrant drawing any conclusion that the adverse, remarks were given, to the appellant because of any mala fide intention. We see no reason to set aside, or expunge the adverse remarks against the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. A.A./397/Sr.S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.