1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"I entirely subscribe to the report of the Director, more to the pen -picture she has drawn. He may be considered for premature retirement." The appellant's argument that the countersigning authority was misled by the above Ex‑Director was far from convincing. In our opinion the officer of the Secretary's position and status was unlikely to be duped and misguided in the manner suggested by the appellant. It would appear that in the year 1984, the same Secretary (countersigning authority) had given adverse report to the appellant, even though the same reporting authority namely Ex‑Director, Mrs. S. Rehmatllah had given him good report for the said year. The Secretary had expressed his views as under.‑‑ "As regards his working, I have no knowledge but his conduct is far from satisfactory. He is prejudiced and used political influence to get his transfer order cancelled." Apart from above we have perused the relevant file containing ACRs given to the appellant from time to time. The material available in the file did not support the appellant's claim that but for the adverse reports given to him by aforementioned Ex‑Director his service record was otherwise clean. We came across some adverse entries in the appellant's ACRs, which were neither initiated by the aforesaid Ex‑Director nor endorsed by the same Secretary who, as has been pointed out above, had expressed himself against him twice. In this connection reference may be made to the ACR given to the appellant for the year 1988. Neither of the above two authorities was party to this ACR, but still the report given to him was more or less same; namely, Mr. Noor Illahi Arain is over‑ambitious. He has completed 27 years service and may be considered for retirement from Government service." It goes without saying that the appellant had served in subordination of Mrs. Rehmatullah, the Ex‑Director for pretty long time, first as Assistant Director and later as Deputy Director. Consequently she had written his ACRs for many years. Excepting for two years, 1986 and 1987, her reports were not adverse to the appellant. We are at a loss to understand why such reporting officer who had been consistently giving him good reports would suddenly turn against the appellant unless she had strong justification for doing so. In this connection the appellant's own admission contained in para. 7 of his memo. of appeal is worthy of note. It reads as under. To achieve the object of Legal Social Welfare Organisation in each village of Sindh, I had introduced a programme "Gothani Samaji Tanzeem Tehrik" and worked very closely with the rural masses who used to speak well about my work. I had also got published through the Divisional Social Welfare Committee, Hyderabad some material to motivate people (Eleven specimens attached). These publications and general reputation of good work in the rural people seems to have been termed as "personal publicity" and "self‑projection". My desire to have a Social Welfare agency in each village seems to have been taken as my "over ambition". Obviously the appellant did not have the necessary power or authority to indulge in the activities highlighted in his above statement. Therefore the evaluation of the appellant's conduct based on such activities made by both the reporting and countersigning authorities was not altogether misplaced. Even otherwise the appellant was unable to give cogent grounds for establishing the Ex‑Director's animosity against him. All that he stated in his memo of appeal was; "Iliac the Reporting Officer had grudge and personal enmity with me." He however did not explain what had made her turn against him. Moreover as stated above, she was not alone in making adverse assessment of the appellant's conduct. Accordingly we were not impressed by the argument that impugned adverse report given to the appellant was the result of personal bias or prejudice of Ex‑Director against him. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the appellant had direct access to the Minister in charge of the said Department. This finds support from a copy of "Summary for Chief Minister" dated 17th December, 1986 submitted by the Minister for Jails and Social Welfare directly to the Chief Minister. In this summary the Minister had spoken high of the appellant, condemning at the same time his immediate boss namely Mrs. S. Rehmatullah, the Director Social Welfare. Strangely enough a copy of the said summary was forwarded to the appellant for information and record. In fact the appellant himself had produced the copy of the above summary for our perusal. It is true that in the summary while commending the work done by the appellant, the Minister deprecated Mrs. S. Rahmatullah, the then Director so much so that he suggested for her shifting from the post of the Director. Apart from this, the same Minister had expunged the adverse remarks given to the appellant by the countersigning authority namely the Secretary by his order which reads as under.‑‑ The appeal of Mr. Arain dated 11‑5‑1985 is still lying in the file. It should have been forwarded by Administrative Department to the Chief Secretary Sindh to whom it was addressed. I expunge the remarks of the countersigning officer as the above are unjustified in view of my observation recorded on para. 180 on the noting sheet attached to the personal file bearing No. S.O.(S.W.)‑1‑8/84 Pt. Of Mr. Noor 111ahi Arain." The Minister may or may not have power to expunge the adverse remarks given to the appellant, the important question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant was within his right to ignore his immediate officers and gain access to the Minister directly. This was certainly against the established channel of working in the Government offices. Even otherwise such practice on the part of the appellant was against the time honoured service ethics. It is true that the ACR in question was communicated to the appellant after more than one and half years. Of course by efflux of time, the sting that adverse ACR carries is gradually blunted. But that is no reason to expunge it from the record. Whatever effect it will have at the relevant time will depend B upon the circumstances of each individual case. The appellant's argument that he was not given personal hearing before disposing of his representation for expunction of the adverse remarks did not seem to be grounded on any rules or manner suggested by the appellant. It would appear that in the year 1984, the same Secretary (countersigning authority) had given adverse report to the appellant, even though the same reporting authority namely Ex‑Director, Mrs. S. Rehmatllah had given him good report for the said year. The Secretary had expressed his views as under.‑‑ "As regards his working, I have no knowledge but his conduct is far from satisfactory. He is prejudiced and used political influence to get his transfer order cancelled." Apart from above we have perused the relevant file containing ACRs given to the appellant from time to time. The material available in the file did not support the appellant's claim that but for the adverse reports given to him by aforementioned Ex‑Director his service record was otherwise clean. We came across some adverse entries in the appellant's ACRs, which were neither initiated by the aforesaid Ex‑Director nor endorsed by the same Secretary who, as has been pointed out above, had expressed himself against him twice. In this connection reference may be made to the ACR given to the appellant for the year 1988. Neither of the above two authorities was party to this ACR, but still the report given to him was more or less same; namely, 'Mr. Noor Illahi Arain is over‑ambitious. He has completed 27 years service and may be considered for retirement from Government service." It goes without saying that the appellant had served in subordination of Mrs. Rehmatullah, the Ex‑Director for pretty long time, first as Assistant Director and later as Deputy Director. Consequently she had written his ACRs for many years. Excepting for two years, 1986 and 1987, her reports were not adverse to the appellant. We are at a loss to understand why such reporting officer who had been consistently giving him good reports would suddenly turn against the appellant unless she had strong justification for doing so. In this connection the appellant's own admission contained in para. 7 of his memo of appeal is worthy of note. It reads as under. To achieve the object of Legal Social Welfare Organisation in each village of Sindh, I had introduced a programme "Gothani Samaji Tanzeem Tehrik" and worked very closely with the rural masses who used to speak well about my work. I had also got published through the Divisional Social Welfare Committee, Hyderabad some material to motivate people (Eleven specimens attached). These publications and general reputation of good work in the rural people seems to have been termed as "personal publicity" and "self‑projection". My desire to have a Social Welfare agency in each village seems to have been taken as my "over ambition". Obviously the appellant did not have the necessary power or authority to indulge in the activities highlighted in his above statement. Therefore the evaluation of the appellant's conduct based on such activities made by both the reporting and countersigning authorities was not altogether misplaced. Even otherwise the appellant was unable to give cogent grounds for establishing the Ex‑Director's animosity against him. All that he stated in his memo of appeal was; "Iliac the Reporting Officer had grudge and personal enmity with me." He however did not explain what had made her turn against him. Moreover as stated above, she was not alone in making adverse assessment of the appellant's conduct. Accordingly we were not impressed by the argument that impugned adverse report given to the appellant was the result of personal bias or prejudice of Ex‑Director against him. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the appellant had direct access to the Minister in charge of the said Department. This finds support from a copy of "Summary for Chief Minister" dated 17th December, 1986 submitted by the Minister for Jails and Social Welfare directly to the Chief Minister. In this summary the Minister had spoken high of the appellant, condemning at the same time his immediate boss namely Mrs. S. Rehmatullah, the Director Social Welfare. Strangely enough a copy of the said summary was forwarded to the appellant for information and record. In fact the appellant himself had produced the copy of the above summary for our perusal. It is true that in the summary while commending the work done by the appellant, the Minister deprecated Mrs. S. Rahmatullah, the then Director so much so that he suggested for her shifting from the post of the Director. Apart from this, the same Minister had expunged the adverse remarks given to the appellant by the countersigning authority namely the Secretary by his order which reads as under.‑‑ The appeal of Mr. Arain dated 11‑5‑1985 is still lying in the file. It should have been forwarded by Administrative Department to the Chief Secretary Sindh to whom it was addressed. I expunge the remarks of the countersigning officer, as the above are unjustified in view of my observation recorded on para.180 on the noting sheet attached to the personal rde bearing No. S.O.(S.W.)‑1‑8/84 Pt. Of Mr. Noor 111ahi Arain." The Minister may or may not have power to expunge the adverse remarks given to the appellant, the important question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant was within his right to ignore his immediate officers and gain access to the Minister directly. This was certainly against the established channel of working in the Government offices. Even otherwise such practice on the part of the appellant was against the time honoured service ethics. It is true that the ACR in question was communicated to the appellant after more than one and half years. Of course by efflux of time, the sting that adverse ACR carries is gradually blunted. But that is no reason to expunge it from the record. Whatever effect it will have at the relevant time will depend upon the circumstances of each individual case. The appellant's argument that he was not given personal hearing before disposing of his representation for expunction of the adverse remarks did not seem to be grounded on any rules or instructions. He did not cite any provision of law or rules which entitled him to personal hearing. Therefore his argument was without force. In support of his argument that he was awarded honorarium for the good work done by him during 1986, the appellant placed reliance on Annexure V which is the letter issued by the Directorate of Social Welfare, Sindh Secretariat to the Accountant General. While endorsing a copy of the said letter to the Principal Social Welfare Training Institute, Karachi, it was stated: "The honorarium has been provided for Mr. Noor Illahi, Principal, on the orders of Ex Minister, Social Welfare for his good work during 1986." Thus even the honorarium was allowed to the appellant under the orders of the same Minister who had also expunged the adverse remarks given to him by the countersigning authority namely Secretary for the year 1984. From the material made available to us, it was not difficult to presume that some how the appellant had succeeded in winning the sympathies of the Minister of his Department. But in the process he apparently lost the goodwill of his immediate superiors. Taking all the above circumstances in view, we do not think that the adverse remarks earned by the appellant for the year 1986 were entirely unjustified. Therefore we see no justification to interfere in the matter and as a result dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./213/Sr. S Appeal dismissed.