1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).‑‑‑This appeal for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the Appellant's A.C.R. for the year 1983, has been received on remand from the Supreme Court of Pakistan for decision on merits after notice to the parties. Accordingly, notices were issued to the parties and the case was heard on 28‑3‑1995.

2. We have heard the parties at length and gone through the record. The adverse remarks recorded in the appellant's A.C.R. for the period from 30‑8‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983 were conveyed to the appellant on 15‑5‑1984. He made an appeal for expunction of the adverse remarks to the Divisional Superintendent on 2‑6‑1984. His appeal was rejected by the competent Authority and appellant was informed through letter dated 2‑9‑1984. From perusal of the departmental record, we found that the appellant had also made another representation to the Chief Engineer, Pakistan Railways, H.Q. Lahore on 27‑8‑1989 which was also rejected by the competent Authority through Pakistan Railways H.Q. Office, Lahore Letter No. SR/9/A/56/Condl., dated 28‑10‑1989 and was duly communicated to the appellant. The said letter reads as under:‑‑ "Mr. Anwar Muhammad, Dated 28‑10‑1989 LOW, Project, D.S. Office, Lahore. Subject:‑ ADVERSE REMARKS RECORDED IN THE ACR FOR THE PERIOD FROM 30‑8‑1983 TO 31‑12‑1983. Ref.: Your representation dated 27‑8‑1989. Your representation dated 27‑8‑1989, against the adverse remarks recorded in your A.C.R. for the period from 30‑8‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983, have been considered and rejected by the competent Authority, in view of para. 3.31 of Guide to Performance Evaluation Reports, there is scope for only one representation against the adverse remarks which you have already availed. (Sd.) For General Manager/A&B:" However, this fact was not brought to the notice of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the appellant had also made representation on 27‑8‑1989 which was rejected by order dated 28‑10‑1989, reproduced above.

3. From the above, it thus appeared that the appellant's first appeal dated 2‑6‑1984 was rejected on 2‑9‑1984 and the other representation made by him on 27‑8‑1989 to the Chief Engineer, was also rejected by the competent Authority on 28‑10‑1989. But the appellant failed to challenge the order dated 28‑10‑1989 before the Service Tribunal because according to his own letter dated 6‑1‑1991 on the record of the departmental file,. it is clear that the competent Authority for expunction of adverse remarks in his case was the Chief Engineer. This letter dated 6‑3‑1991 of the appellant addressed to the Chief Engineer, Pakistan Railways, Lahore, is to the following effect:‑‑ "With due respect I beg to state that I submitted my appeal to the Divisional Superintendent, Rawalpindi considering next higher authority of the officer (DEN), who recorded above said adverse remarks in my A.C.R. The Divisional Superintendent, Rawalpindi should have either forwarded my appeal to the competent Authority (Chief Engineer) or should have informed me in this respect for submitting the appeal direct to Chief Engineer. In reference to my that appeal D.P.O./Rawalpindi informed me that my appeal has been rejected by the competent Authority, from which I took it that my appeal was rejected by the Chief Engineer, but when I came to know that my said appeal has not been rejected by the Chief Engineer, then I submitted appeal to your honour direct, please." The Departmental appeal dated 27‑8‑1989 addressed by the appellant to the Chief Engineer, who according to appellant's own letter referred to above, was the competent Authority and the same was rejected by the competent Authority on 28‑10‑1989, as such there was no scope for further appeal to another authority on 8‑1‑1991. Record shows that the appellant had also made an application on 8‑3‑1996 to the Chief Engineer for expunction of adverse remarks. From the abovementioned facts, it thus became very clear that the appellant had at least repeated his request for expunction of adverse remarks, four times. He made first appeal against the adverse remarks to the Divisional Superintendent on 2‑6‑1984, which according to the appellant was not competent. Thereafter, he made another appeal on 27‑8‑1989 to the Chief Engineer, who as per appellant's own admission in his letter dated 6‑3‑1991 referred to above, was the competent Authority. His second appeal dated 27‑8‑1989 was also rejected by the competent Authority on 28‑10‑1989. Instead of coming to the Service Tribunal against this order, dated 28‑10‑1989, the appellant made third representation to the Chief Engineer on 8‑1‑1991 after a period of more than six years from the first rejection order dated 2‑9‑1984, which was heavily time‑barred. In view of Supreme Court's decision in a reported case of Khan Sahib Sher Muhammad Mir v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1987 SCMR 92), time spent in making repeated representations would not be excluded from period of limitation. It appears that these facts were not brought to the notice of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, which lead to the remand of the case for decision on merits.

4. Nevertheless, in deference to the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, we have considered the case on merits. The remarks in column 2(f) `Ability to work under stress and strain' "below Average", are correct because these remarks are based on the objective assessment of the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Officer Mr. S.M. Wahiduddin, Divisional Superintendent, Rawalpindi remarked that the assessment made by the Reporting Officer was reasonably good. The assessment appears to be based on facts, because the reporting officer Mr. Abdul Wahab Awan, in his comments dated 13‑2‑1991 called from him on the representation of the appellant mentions that the remarks given in column 2(f) of the A.C.R. as "Below Average" are correct because the subordinate was inefficient and lethargic in performance of his duties. It was with personal efforts of Assistant Engineer, Sargodha and the A.I.O.Ws./Works Mistries that the section was got attended. In fact, the appellant did not deserve the appreciation as the same was on account of diligent working of the said staff. The Reporting Officer, further commented that the appellant took issues casually and very lightly with the result there were numerous complaints against him both from the staff and the public. The remarks regarding working of the appellant pertained to a specific period as such earning of good reports prior to or later than the period for which the remarks have been endorsed does not carry any weight. No technicality has been pointed out by the appellant nor he has attributed any bias against the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer. We are therefore, of the view that the remarks "Below Average" against column 2(f) of the appellant's A.C.R. for the year ending 31‑12‑1983 are well‑founded. We find no merits in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Parties be informed. H.B.T./1060/Sr.F???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ????? Appeal dismissed.