1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

duty as routine function. (ii) Interest in economic ‑do‑ " development. The appellant once again submitted representation on 2‑7‑1985. It was pleaded that there was no complaint of work against the appellant nor he was counselled by the Reporting Officer. It was further contended that these remarks were conveyed to him after six years contrary to the rules. The appellant on the basis of this position requested the Respondent No.1 for expunction of these remarks. But his representation was rejected, vide letter dated 22‑10‑1985, compelling the appellant to file the present appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

2. I have gone through the grounds of appeal, Character Roll of the appellant and also the comments/ written objections submitted by the respondents. The respondents have attached justification of the Reporting Officer as Annexure/B, with their comments. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:‑ "The remarks viz. "Is interested to treat this aspect of his duty as a routine function" with regard to the interest taken by the officer concerned in social welfare and economic development, were in fact, meant to show him as average type officer and as such these remarks may be taken as favourable and in no case as adverse." I have reproduced the justification only to show that after going through the same, the respondent No.1 was not well advised still to reject the representation of the appellant and to involve the appellant and for the department in unnecessary litigation. According to the instructions given at the foot of the performa the remarks underlined in fact should be communicated in writing. I have noticed from the original A . C . R. that relevant columns 18 and 19 were not underlined by the Reporting Officer as required under the instructions of Government. Even the Reporting Officer in his pen‑picture observed:‑ "Work and conduct remain satisfactory throughout the period under report." whereas the observation of the countersigning officer is as under: "I consider the assessment made by the Reporting Officer is reasonably good" and he added following remarks:‑ "Average Officer." It is not clear as to how and who treated the disputed remarks as adverse. I find as sideline put in red ink and in the same ink at the end of report there is a note to the effect that "adverse remarks communicated vide D.O. No. 203 dated 13‑6‑1985". This action is again unnecessary. This all speak of carelessness in handling very delicate and important documents viz. A.C.Rs. According to the instructions these adverse remarks were to be conveyed by the end of June, 1980. The Reporting Officer made the report on 24‑1‑1980, while the countersigning Officer countersigned the remarks on 2‑2‑1980, whereas the remarks were communicated in June, 1985. This handling is in sheer violation of instructions on the subject. It is the duty o respondent No.1 to find out as to who is responsible for this late communication and how and under whose authority these remarks were treated as adverse and who is responsible for their communication. This type of negligence in handling of the matter in utter violation of the instructions of Government reflects on the administrative capabilities of respondents.

3. The upshot of the above discussion is that the remarks are held to be not adverse as admitted by the Reporting Officer in his justification at Annexure/B, and reproduced in para.

2. Therefore, the order of respondent No.1 rejecting the representation of the appellant against these remarks is held utterly without justification and illegal exercise of the jurisdiction. The same is set aside and remarks are treated as not adverse. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. A.A./124/Sr.P. Order accordingly.