1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Adverse Remarks for the year 1982. Pen Picture.."He is not serious in his work.' Adverse Remarks for the year 1983. Pen Picture "He does not take interest in his work." The above adverse remarks are said to have been given to appellant by Director, School Education, Karachi named Mr. Abdul Moeed Farooqui who retired from service on 6‑7‑1986 before the said remarks were communicated to appellant. According to appellant the said remarks were the result of his application, dated 30‑11‑1986 in which he had prayed for move‑over from Grades 17 to

18. The above Director instead of forwarding the above move‑over application to Secretary, Government of Sind Education Department, Karachi communicated the above‑cited Adverse Remarks to appellant for the said period. Due to these adverse remarks for the years 1982 and 1983 the move‑over of appellant could not be considered. However, the appellant challenged the above adverse remarks and filed departmental appeal on 6‑1‑1987 before the Secretary to the Government of Sind, Education and Culture Department, Karachi. Before the decision of above departmental appeal and after waiting statutory period of 90 days the appellant chose to prefer this Service Appeal in this Tribunal on 11‑5‑1987 for expunction of such adverse remarks. This matter is heard through counsel of appellant Mr. S.M. Abbas and State counsel Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi. In course of arguments it was submitted on behalf of appellant that the above A.C.Rs., were incomplete inasmuch as those were not countersigned by countersigning authority and as such they could not be conveyed to the appellant. On the other hand the learned Government counsel contended that the appellant approached the wrong forum for expunction of remarks as instead of making representation to his appointing authority namely the Minister concerned he made representation to the Secretary of the Department. While hearing both the counsel of parties on the above points Mr. S.M. Abbas the Advocate for appellant has admitted that according to instruction No. 43 of instructions for filling up A.C.Rs., the Representation/Appeal is to be made to the Appointing Authority and in view of latest Notification No. SOIX‑REG Regulation (S&GAD)‑II/48‑84, dated 11‑2‑1985, the Appointing Authority of Grade‑17 Officer (excluding Civil Judges) is shown as Mister concerned. It is an admitted position that the appellant had filed departmental appeal to Secretary to the Government of Sind, Education and Culture Department, Karachi, and not to the concerned Minister and as such the wrong forum has been adopted. In this connection we may refer to Supreme Court Authority, reported as Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azam Javid 1988 S C M R 1458 wherein it was held, "The view taken by the Tribunal, about the appeal having been preferred to the wrong quarters in the same heirarchy we endorse the view taken that it being the designated authority and only channel for appeal having not been followed, it is a rectifiable irregularity and could be corrected by sending the appeal to the appropriate quarters for its comments. We find that the view taken by the Service Tribunal is correct". In view of above authority if appellant made representation to wrong forum the said forum could have forwarded it to right forum and as such the objection of Government Counsel has no force. Thus, it appears that the representation/appeal of appellant regarding expunction of adverse remarks, which has not so far been decided should be assumed to have been forwarded by the wrong forum to concerned Minister. However, since the appellant after waiting for 90 days has come to this Tribunal and filed appeal it would be assumed that appeal has been filed correctly to the right forum and the appellant has rightly approached this Tribunal after waiting statutory period of 90 days. So far as the second issue is concerned regarding of incompletion of A.C.Rs. for want of remarks by the countersigning authority it has been admitted by the State Counsel. We have also perused the A.C.Rs., which seem to have not been countersigned by any authority and without the countersignature of next higher authority the A.C.Rs. and adverse remarks thereon cannot be said to be complete and as such the matter cannot be decided on merits on incomplete adverse remarks. We are, therefore, of the view that since the adverse remarks communicated to the appellant are incomplete no definite decision can be taken on merit on the above adverse remarks and as such the appeal is disposed of accordingly with the direction that A.C.Rs. for the year 1.982‑83 be completed by the countersigning authority and the appellant be communicated adverse remarks if any after completion of the above A.C.Rs. It would be open to the appellant to make representation to the correct forum and again come to this Tribunal in case he is not satisfied on his departmental level. With this observation the appeal is disposed of with no orders as to cost. AA./175/Sr.S Order accordingly.