1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑Adverse remarks in ACR‑‑Officer giving adverse remarks should justify his opinion by relevant instances of lapses and omissions- Appellant rated as "good" by Reporting Officer‑Countersigning Officer recording "below average"‑No definite instance to justify his disagreement with reporting officer indicate‑Such remarks in absence of any cogent reason by quoting any specific instance for disagreement with Reporting Officer, held, liable to be expun ged‑ Appeal against adverse remarks‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.

4. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑ Muhammad Farooq Chauhan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Punjab Province, through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab Communication and Works Department, Lahore as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse entries relating to period 29th May, 1980 to 4th October, 1980 vide letter dated 29th September, 1981 be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case acre that the appellant while working as Sub‑Divisional Officer Machinery Maintenance Sub‑Division, D. G. Khan during the period 29th May, 1980 to 4th October, 1980 was given the following adverse remarks by the first countersigning officer in Part IV of the A. C. R. "He is below average." Against these remarks the appellant represented to the Government which was rejected vide an order dated 5th April, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the department and have perused the record of this case including the A. C. R. of the appellant at length. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the reporting officer did not consider the appellant below average but it was only first countersigning officer who observed so but failed to give his opinion which is absolutely without any base or contention. According to the learned counsel no incident has been quoted by the officer regarding the said remarks. Thus, these remarks have no value as being vague and general in nature. It has been also submitted that Mr. S. A. Bhalli, although he denied any ill‑will against the appellant in his comments, while it would be apparent from the record that the appellant has been agitating against the doubt of this officer in his corres pondence with his superiors. It has also been argued that with purpose the funds for the repair of ferry vessels was reduced during the year 1979‑80 to a merger sum of Rs. 50,000 whereas it used to be in lakhs previously. This was according to the learned counsel an act with purpose so as to bring bad name to the appellant. This fact was highlighted by the appellant vide his letter No. 1161 dated 20th July, 1980 which will show that the appellant was not at fault.

5. We have perused the parawise comments as well as report of the commenting Officer and have also taken into consideration detailed representation enclosure `B' submitted by the appellant bringing all these events to light. We have also carefully perused the letter from M. Saleem Akhtar Bhalli, to the Secretary Government of the Punjab Communication & Works Department, Government of the Punjab dated 30th March, 1982 in which he has denied the allegation of ill‑will but at the same time has failed to give any positive instance to justify his observation. While going through the instructions given by the Govern ment for recording of the A. C. R. of subordinates by his superior we find that it has been directed that the officer giving adverse remarks/entry to a subordinate should justify his opinion by relevant instances of his misconduct, lapse or omission. It will be interesting to know that the appellant does not possess degree in Civil Engineering and is Bachelor of Science in Engineering on the mechanical side. In view of this estab lished fact it would not be fair to assess the capability of appellant on the Civil side which was not his line. Accepting that the appellant was working as Civil Engineer at the relevant time although being a Civil Engineer, even then the first countersigning authority/officer had to give definite instances in order to justify his disagreement with tire report ing officer who was the immediate incharge of the appellant and best judge of his work and conduct. We have carefully perused the entries para. 2 of the A. C. R. as well as para. 3 and find that the reporting officer, M. A. Latif Executive Engineer, find his work good in all the columns of the said two parts and recommended him‑ for retention in ser vice after 25 years of service. While dealing with para. 3 the said officer finds the overall work of the appellant is very good. In his pen picture he said that the appellant was intelligent, hardworking and honest officer. In view of the said positive observation made in favour of the appellant by the reporting officer it became all the more incumbent upon the first countersigning officer/authority for Mr. S. A. Bhalli, Superintending Engineer, High Way Circle Multan to justify his assess ment of the work of the appellant which according to him was below average and the appellant was in his opinion a person not to be trusted with any Civil Engineering Works.

6. In view of detailed analysis of this case as given above and for the reason that his first countersigning officer/authority has failed to give any cogent reason by quoting specific instances for his disagreement with the reporting officer with regard to the work of the appellant web are of the considered opinion that the impugned adverse entry is liable' to be expunged. We, therefore, accept the appeal and direct that the impugned entry: He is below average and may not be entrusted any Civil Engineer work." be expunged from the A. C. R. Appeal Accepted.