1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDOR RASHID (MEMBER).‑Facts of the case are that a confi dential report was initiated on the appellant covering the period 13th August, 1981 to 31st December, 1981. This report was written by Mr. Azmat Hussain, Director Telegraphs, Southern Region while the appellant was employed as Assistant General Manager 11 S. T. R., Karachi, in his own pay and grade

17. The reporting officer graded the appellant as average and declared him fit for promotion as well as fit for retention (after 25 years of service). The counter signing officer, Mr. Wali Muhammad, General Manager, Southern Telecom. Region, Karachi, too, concurred with the report and considered the appellant to be fit both for retention after 25 years of service as well as for promotion to grade 18.

2. While the above report was in the field another report was initiated on the appellant covering the period 1st January, 1981 to 31st December, 1981. This report was captioned as Special Report 1981 and had been written in response to telegram No. S/M‑221/COLL‑11, D. P. C. dated 2nd February, 1982. This report, too, was initiated by Mr. Azmat Hussain, Director, Telegraphs, Southern Telecom. Region, Karachi and bears the date of 13th May, 1982. This report, insofar as the Reporting Officer is concerned, graded the appellant as average, declared him nor fit for promotion but likely to become fit in course of time. There was no mention of appellant's fitness or otherwise for retention after 25 years of service. The pen picture by the Reporting Officer was as under:‑ "The officer had at time found shirking 'official responsibilities given to him. The general impression about the performance, of his work is that he has a quarrelling attitude with his subordinates, and does not enjoy their confidence. This way of putting up cases in file does not readily assist in disposal of cases straightway he guides his subordinates in a manner which is resisted by them. Although he looks (illegible) pious person, his conduct in some situations of responsibilities proved irritating to his immediate superiors."

3. The remarks of the countersigning officer who, too, were the same as for the report referred to in para. 1, are also reproduced :‑ Mr. Musharrafur Rehman, a medium statured, moderately built and active looking person seems to have achieved less perseverance and association with his job than the length of his service would have warranted. His double migration, from India to East Pakistan and from Bangladesh to Pakistan appears to have burdened his thought which shows him as temperamental at times. He is fast in talking and one has to be all ears to understand him. Casting back eves on his previous year he is seen as more suited to desk work. He would not have fared well in public dealing, just average in dependability and output of work. His personal conduct and financial integrity are good. He dresses simply and is not foppish. He is fit for retention in service. It will take more time for him to become fit for promotion to Grade 18. (Sd.) (Wall Muhammad) General Manager Southern Telecom. Region Karachi 13‑5‑1982."

4. The Special Report covering the period 1st January, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 being adverse in nature, was communicated to the appellant vide Director‑General T & T's D. O. letter, dated 23rd May, 1982. The appellant preferred an appeal on 8th June, 1982 against this adverse report. Since the appellant did not receive any reply he came to the Tribunal after exhausting the statutory waiting period of 90 days. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing on 17th March, 1983 and it is being disposed of by this order.

5. We heard the appellant as also the learned State Counsel.

6. No one could explain to our satisfaction as to how and why a special report was called for when two reports for the year 1981 were already available with the Office of the Director‑General T & T. One report covered the period from 1st January, 1981 to 12th August, 1981 and had been recorded by Mr. Badruddin Malik. The other report dealt with at para. 1 above, covered the period from 13th August, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 and had been recorded by Mr. Azmat Hussain Director, with Mr. Wali Muhammad, General Manager as the countersigning Officer. This report had been dated 10th January, 1982 by the Reporting Officer and Mr. Wali Muhammad, after recording his remarks dated it as 20th January, 1982. Even if we presume that the report, dated 20th January, 1982 covering the period 13th August, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 and initiated by Azmat Hussain, had not reached the office of the Director‑General T & T then, in response to the Director- General's telegram, dated 2nd February, 1982 the least that we expected of Messrs Azmat Hussain, Director and Wali Muhammad, General Manager, was to inform the Director‑General T & T that a report in respect of the appellant covering the period 13th August, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 was already on the way. Nothing has been brought to our notice from which we could infer that the said two officers took any such step which we would term as purely elementary in the field of office procedure and would be expected of any officer. Instead, to compound the inefficiency, or due to ulterior reasons, Mr. Azmat Hussain wrote a Special Report on the appellant covering the period 1st January, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 knowing fully well that the said Director (Azmat Hussain) had assumed the appointment. w.e.f. 13th August, 1981 and that any report on the appellant prior to 13th August, 1981 was outside the field of his competence and that it was no concern of Mr. Azmat Hussain to write a report on one appellant for such period that the latter did not serve under the former and yet Mr. Azmat Hussain recorded a Special Report, an adverse report, for the period 1st January, 1981 to 31st December, 1981. The second report apart from being incompetent was an adverse report and was, thus, in contradiction to the earlier report covering the period 13th August, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 in which the appellant had been recommended for promotion to grade 18 The conduct of the General Manager (Mr. Wali Muhammad) is no better. We have, therefore, no doubt that it was the mala fide intent of the said two officials who were working in collaboration with someone in the Office of the Director‑General, T & T to harm the appellant and that it had everything to do with the judgment of the Tribunal in appeal No. 18(K)/79. We are constrained to remark that we doubt the honesty of Messrs Wali Muhammad and Azmat Hussain. We are not prepared to accept the lame reply of the respondent‑department wherein at para. 7 they have said :‑ "The report under reference was erroneously narrated as a "special report" for the period 1st January, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 which later on (was) treated to be ordinary report and appellant informed accordingly. The report is valid." In our considered view this is not a case of error. It is, in fact; a case of bad faith and needs to be looked into by the Director‑General; T & T. We are also not prepared to accept the above‑quoted contention of the department for the simple reason that the adverse remarks were not expunged in the inadmissible Special Report, dated 13th May, 1982 and the appellant informed accordingly vide Director‑General T & T's letter, dated 29th November, 1982.

8. In view of the foregoing analysis we accept the appeal and order that the report, dated 20th January, 1982 covering the period 13th August, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 shall be retained in the C. R. dossier of the appellant. The Special Report, dated 13th May, 1982 which is now being termed as ordinary report but retains adverse entries, shall be removed from the C. R. dossier of the appellant.

9. This order shall also deem to have disposed of Appeal No. 1(K)/83, dated 1st January, 1983,

10. No order as to costs, A. E. Appeal accepted.