1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Shami, Lecturer (Mathematics), Government F.C. College, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director of Education (Colleges), Lahore Division, Lahore and Director Punjab Instruction (College), Punjab, Lahore as Respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks pertaining to the period from 1‑1‑1969 to 27‑6‑1969, 1973 and 1975 may be expunged. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the above noted periods. He filed Departmental Appeal which was rejected by final Order dated 2‑3‑1986/6‑3‑1986. He has now filed this appeal before us for the expunction of the said remarks. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted as follows:‑ (1) Regarding adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1969 to 27-6‑969.‑‑It has been argue that the Reporting Officer a become personal and biased against appellant and due to that reason he gave the said adverse remarks which are factually incorrect. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that this fact is proved because when the Reporting Officer was asked to justify the remarks he could not justify the same and was content with making a request that the remarks be withdrawn, cancelled and expunged whatever is possible under the rules and the ACR for this period might be treated as 'average'. It has further been argued that the Director of Education also expressed his opinion that the Reporting Officer was biased and the remarks were due to misunderstanding. (2) Regarding adverse remarks for the year 1973.‑‑It has been submitted that these remarks are also factually incorrect and the remarks in the pen‑picture were contradictory to the remarks in the specified columns about the work and conduct. It has also been submitted that the remarks have been conveyed to the appellant after 13 years. It has again been submitted that no specific or concrete instance of non‑cooperation or lack of judgment and sense of proportion has been quoted by the Reporting Officer. The learned counsel has again referred to the views of the Director of Education with regard to the correctness of the remarks. (1) Regarding adverse remarks for the ear 1975.‑‑It has been argued that the remark that the appellant has treated the aspect of social welfare as routine function of his duties is misconceived because this was not within the sphere of appellant's duties to do any work relating to social welfare. His work was confined to teaching or extra curricular activities entrusted to him by the Head of Institution. 5. That the learned counsel has also vehemently relied upon Para 34 of the instructions regarding timely writing of A.C.Rs. and communication of adverse remarks. He has submitted that the delay in the writing and communication of these reports have seriously prejudiced. He has relied upon the case of Maqsood Alam v. Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department (1985 P L C (CS) 503), Mrs. Safia Imran Malik v. SGA & I Department (1985 P L C (CS) 51) and Fayyaz Ahmad Malhi v . Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab (1986 P L C (CS) 826). He has submitted that in all these cases appeals have been accepted due to inordinate delay in the communication of adverse remarks and the prejudice caused to the civil servants concerned in delayed communication. 6. The learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments and has argued that the remarks have correctly. been given by the Reporting Officer for which there was sufficient justification. It has also been argued that other Reporting Officers have also given adverse remarks with regard to the appellant which should also be taken into consideration while assessing the intrinsic value of these remarks. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the A.C.Rs. of the appellant. We have particularly perused the views of the Director of Education, Lahore in respect of the remarks for each of these years. The views/ recommendations of the Director of Education are usefully quoted below: ‑ 1969: The A.C.R. for the year 1969 has been written by two different Reporting Officers. (1) From period 1‑1‑69 to 27‑6‑69 by Prof. Hafiz Manzoor‑ul‑Haq Usmani. (2) For the period from 6‑9‑69 to 31‑12‑69 by Prof. Neiamat Ali. The report by Hafiz Sahib contains adverse remarks almost in all columns of A.C.R. with the gradation as either poor or below average. It is not possible that an officer should be so bad that every aspect of his life is condemnable. Such report is certainly the manifestation of some acute misunderstanding between the Principal and the Lecturer concerned. The comments were invited from the R.O. on the representation of Mr.Shami when these adverse remarks were communicated to him the R.O. has desired that his previous and old A.C.R. be withdrawn and the adverse remarks be cancelled and expunged. Instead the A.C.R. of 1969 be considered as an average in toto. The R.O. seems to have no reason or argument at this belated stage to substantiate his previous remarks and has tried to evade the situation. This attitude of a senior officer towards a beginner at the initial stages without warning him to mend his ways cannot be viewed with appreciation. The 2nd ACR initiated by Mr. Neiamat Ali for the later part of the year 1969 negates what has been said about Mr. Shami by Hafiz Sb. in the early half of the year 1969. In view of the 2nd report for the period from 6‑9‑69 to 31‑12‑69 and the comment of Mr. Manzoor‑ul‑Haq Usmani, it is recommended that the entire report for the period from 1‑1‑69 to 27‑6‑69 be cancelled, withdrawn and may be considered as average in toto. 1973: The comments of the R.O. could not be obtained as he is out of Pakistan. The A.C.R. for the year 1973 contains adverse remarks in columns 2 and 9 regarding the judgment and sense of proportion and cooperation and tract have been assessed below average. The remarks in column 2 are contradictory to the assessment made in other columns, which have been rated either as A or B. Similarly the pen‑picture negates the adverse remarks in column 9. In fact the R.O., has highlighted the improvement which the officer has shown during the year under report. The adverse remarks in columns 2 and 9 should not have any effect on the overall assessment of the officer hence may not be considered. These may be expunged. 1975: The R.O. is not alive. Hence no comments could be obtained. However, the report on the whole is average. The so‑called adverse remarks in column 18 only cannot be considered as adverse as the same does not apply to the functions the officer was supposed to discharge. The report, therefore, should not be taken as adverse. 8. We are inclined to accept the views and recommendations of the Director of Education as he is not only senior to both the appellant as well as Reporting Officer but being Head of Department is in a better position to assess the correctness of the remarks and the actual worth of the officers working in the Department. No material has been placed before us to show that the opinion given by the Director of Education is not in any way tenable. 9. We, therefore, proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and expunge the adverse remarks from Appellant's A.C.Rs. for the period from 1‑1‑1969 to 27‑6‑1969, 1973 and 1975. There will be no orders as to costs. A.E./69/Sr.P Appeal accepted.