1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Appellant Bashir Hussain Lower Division Clerk filed the present appeal against the adverse remarks given to him in the A.C.R. for the year, 1986 vide Letter No.F.No.11(2)/8l: Admn. , dated 16‑6‑1987. According to him he has been working as L.D.C. under the respondents for the last 14/15 years, satisfactorily. In the year, 1986, he was working at Lady Reading Hospital under the respondent No.3 who gave him satisfactory A.C.R. but under the direction of respondent No.4 some adverse remarks were given to him. Respondent No.4 is biased. Representation of the appellant failed, hence the present appeal, on the ground that the remarks are unjustified, against the facts and principle of natural justice and contrary to law and rules. Claim of the appellant was vehemently resisted by the respondents, who controverted the allegations of the appellant and after going through the record and hearing the arguments we propose to decide the appeal as under: Impugned A.C.R. Annexure "A" contains several columns. Column No.4 is regarding observance of office procedure, keeping of files and papers, referencing and paging of notes etc. and promptness and accuracy in disposing of work was treated as just average, skill in drafting punctuality, cooperation with other staff, discipline, knowledge of procedure and regulation was considered as satisf9ctory, intelligence was graded as low, he was termed as in‑corruptible. In pen picture the reporting officer gave the remarks about his performance as just‑satisfactory. Further, it was held by the reporting officer that the appellant is not hard working, does not show interest in work, avoids interest in his duties and very seldom he is interested in his duties. The countersigning authority endorsed the said remarks. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that these remarks were based on surmises and conjectures. These were mala fide and the result of personal disliking of the appellant by the countersigning authority, who prevailed upon the reporting officer and obtained the desired results at her hands because in the connected Appeal No.69 of 1987 the reporting officer being the same person gave him the good remarks and the countersigning officer disagreed with the same. It shows that the reporting officer by giving the remarks in the impugned A.C.R. to the appellant failed to display her independent opinion. Further, he argued that the appellant served under the said respondents for more than two years and under the rules if he was awarded bad/adverse A.C.R., then it was incumbent upon respondents to transfer and place him under some other reporting/ countersigning authority. On the other hand learned Special Government Pleader argued that the respondents being the High Officers were in no way prejudicial, the remarks were not mala fide and the respondents have got no personal dislikes against the appellant. We have given our patient hearing to the said arguments and have perused the record. The A.C.R. is a unified document and the remarks contained in it must reflect the uniform result. These must not be opposite to each other. In the present case, the appellant was shown to be punctual, disciplined, cooperative, possessing knowledge of procedure and good draftsman. These remarks in the long run would contradict the findings of the reporting officer, given by her in the column "General Remarks" where he was shown to be not hardworking and observing no interest for his work. If this were the position, then the reporting officer was, bound to call for his explanation, to offer him warning and advice and to take any, other disciplinary action for his in efficiency and lack of interest in the work because it amounts to misconduct. There is nothing on the record to suggest the above proposition in affirmative, so it can be presumed that the said remarks were not given by an independent mind, somebody else was there to dictate his own views. The argument that the countersigning officer had got no personal dislikes against `he appellant can be of no avail because notwithstanding the difference of status between the appellant and the said officer there are other circumstances, not visible which form the particular opinion of an officer against a subordinate. The appellant under the rules must have been transferred after he was awarded adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs. for the years, 1983 to 1985 by the countersigning officer to some other place, before he can get the A. C. R. for the year, 1986. This was something against the rules of natural justice, good conscience, and the non‑observance of the procedure. On the basis of the above reasoning we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the adverse remarks contained in the A.C.R., for the year, 1986 be expunged. Parties are left to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the Record Room. S.Q. /77/Sr.N Appeal accepted