1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Appellant preferred the present appeal against the communication of the adverse remarks for the year 1987 to him on 8‑6‑1988 by respondent No.

1. According to him he joined the Police Force as a Constable in 1969. He qualified the requisite courses and was confirmed as Head Constable in the year 1980. The adverse remarks vide Annexure A were conveyed to him by respondent No. 1 and he preferred an appeal to respondent No. 2, copy of which is Annexure B. Respondent No. 1 was asked to give his comments on the appeal. Copy of the reply is Annexure C wherein no allegation was levelled against the appellant but respondent No. 2 despite this fact rejected the appeal; hence the present appeal on the grounds that the order of the respondent is against law and all cannons of justice. Respondent No. 1 without any proof passed the impugned order which is mala fide. Respondents submitted the written statement denying the allegations of the appellant and further stating that he has got no cause of action, that this Court has got no jurisdiction, that the appeal is barred by time and that it may be dismissed for miss-joinder of parties. On facts all the paras from 1 to 4 were denied, however, qua para. 5 no comments were offered by the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was punished unheard. It was incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to give opportunity to him before recording the adverse remarks in his ACRs. He failed to do so and this practice was also adopted by respondent No: 2 at the time of hearing the appeal, in absence of the appellant: According to him ACR is such a document which determines the fitness, promotion and further retention of a Government servant in service. So, the Reporting Officers are duty bound under the norms of justice to apply their minds on each and every aspect of the employee's performance. On the other hand learned Prosecuting Inspector argued that respondent No. 1 had got no mala fide intention in awarding the adverse remarks to the appellant. Since the appellant served under him so he was in a better position to judge his personal traits. He further argued that departmental appeal filed by the appellant was barred by limitation and this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. We have given our patient hearing to the arguments advanced by both the sides and have gone through the record produced by the Prosecuting Inspector representing the department. So far as the plea of jurisdiction is concerned this Tribunal has got the powers to adjudicate upon such like matters because police force is also a Government department and the present matter does not relate with the promotion of the appellant. The other objection regarding limitation is also without any substance because it was incumbent upon the departmental appellate authority to give findings on this point. The record shows that the appeal was not decided on this issue. Moreover, the record brought by the Prosecuting Inspector does not show that as to when the appellant received the copy of the impugned order. His version was that on receipt of the appeal, within no time he filed the departmental appeal and then the appeal before this Tribunal. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant during his submissions above, we agree that ACR is a very important document and rather a deciding factor in the promotion, seniority and retention of a Government servant in service, therefore, the Reporting Officer must write the same without any bias. If there is anything against an official/officer, it is incumbent upon the Reporting Officer to warn/advise him in time but before the writing of the ACR. Similarly the departmental appellate authority is under legal obligation to summon an aggrieved Government servant before deciding his appeal in order to know the background of the case because there are certain matters which can only be judged if the aggrieved Government servant is heard in person by the appellate forum. When the appeal was entertained by respondent No. 2, he called upon the comments of respondent No. 1 and a perusal of the said comments would show that the appellant had got an excellent record of service and there were no complaints against him. This being so, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order with the direction to expunge the adverse remarks from the ACR of the appellant. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. H.B.T./118/Sr. N Appeal accepted.