1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(vi) Integrity. (Doubtful) (vii) Relations with public (There were complaints) (viii) Punctuality in submission of (Poor) reports and disposal of work. (ix) Touring to check field work. (Not systematic). (12) Particulars of reprimand or warning He was warned due to if any administered. incomplete record. (13) General Remarks: (He is careless in performing legitimate duties. He is master of intrigues and undergound activities against his officers and subordinates to achieve his vested interest and ill‑motives. He will not spare his officers from blackmailing if they question him about his duties. Sometimes he threatens his immediate officers and tries to maintain relations one step higher.)

3. Appellant made representation before respondent No.2 which was rejected vide order dated 11‑10‑1987. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with assistance of representatives of the department with care.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the adverse report conveyed to the appellant is without justification and is mala fide. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has been strongly opposed by the learned DA. who stated that impugned orders passed by respondents in the light of comments/report furnished by the respondents may be allowed to be upheld.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that in the present case relevant instructions regarding the writing of ACRs have been violated as the adverse report was communicated to the appellant as late as on 8‑6‑1987 which was not quite unusual but unfair. I also find from the contents of the letter dated 5‑3‑1984 (Annexure‑F) addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.l the personal annoyance and malice of the reporting officer against the appellant. The contents of this letter are reproduced below:‑ "From sometimes ago misunderstanding prevailed between me and Unit 8 Supervisor and in your presence this has been sorted out and misunderstanding has been cleared. Keeping in view the discussion openly held in your office, I request that all the cases initiated against him may kindly be treated as dropped:" The service record of the appellant has been found to be satisfactory and unblemished. There is nothing on the record indicating that any counselling or warning was ever conveyed to the appellant by the reporting officer during the period under adverse report. The Ist and second countersigning officers have declared him as an average worker. Appellant's entire service being good it is inconceivable situation that the appellant had turned into inefficient or corrupt for a period of four months and then he again regained his efficiency and honesty, quite abruptly. Reliance has been rightly placed on a decided case reported as 1983 P L C (C.S.) 303 wherein following observation was made:‑ "Inefficiency and corruption are tracts of character which linger on with a person and cannot be developed suddenly then can leave him abruptly..." The above dictum is fully applicable to the facts of the appellant's case.So there is no reason to uphold the remarks which are unjustified and liable to be expunged. Consequently, I accept this appeal and set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks recorded in the appellant's ACR for the period from 1‑1‑1984 to 8‑5‑1984 be expunged. There is no order as to costs. M.Y.H./299/Sr.P Appeal accepted.