2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).

Facts of the case, as appear from the record, are that the appellant, Habib Shah, working as Assistant Director B.17 in the Intelligence Bureau Academy, Islamabad, got aggrieved by Notification, dated 26-9-1995 whereby he was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee despite being senior vis-a-vis his juniors who were considered for promotion. Feeling aggrieved by this notification he later on submitted representation which was rejected on 30-12-1997 with the remarks that:-- "The case for promotion of Mr. Habib Shah, Assistant Director from BPS. 17 to BPS. 18 was deferred during 1995 due to his indifferent record of service. At present no post of Deputy Director in promotion quota exists. Whenever, vacancies are created in the promotion quota for the post of Deputy Director B.18, case of his promotion alongwith others shall be placed before the DPC "

2. The appellant and the counsel for the respondents have been heard and record perused. During the course of hearing arguments a question was put to the. representative of the respondents for .seeking clarification regarding "indifferent record of service" which he clarified by quoting the relevant adverse entries from the ACR of the appellant for the period from 7-7-1994 to 31-12-1994 and as such this situation necessitates scrutiny of the officer's record from the back dates to determine as to how he was depicted in the previous ACRs and in this respect his ACRs from the year 1990 have been selected for scrutiny upto date available on the file for correct assessment of the officer whose promotion stands deferred due to his "indifferent record of service". But before doing the needful let us first consider the adverse ACR involved in the report under reference.

3. A perusal of the ACR from 7th July 1994 to 31st December, 1994 depicts the officer as under: "PART-II: The overall assessment in this part is 'C' which is "Below Average. " "PART-III: In this part the overall assessment is 'B' which is "Average." "PART-IV It is ' C' "Below Average. " "PART-V (a) Pen-Picture: Religious minded but a weak type of officer. In class room, he could hardly satisfy his class as he lacks the power to concentrate on a given subject. During his stay under me his contribution towards his profession was limited. Being a technical person his performance on other jobs is not satisfactory. He can hardly take any other job except that of simple translation/transcription. Change of job is recommended. (b) Counselling: Nil (c) Assessment of Performance.--He was tested on many jobs as an Instructor, as Security Officer, as Technical Officer, as a religious teacher and as Officer Incharge Course but he failed to produce goods. He is not in a position to satisfy his class or his subordinates. PART-VI: (a) Overall Grading: By Reporting Officer By Countersigning Officer Below Average below Average (b) Fitness for Promotion:???????? Not yet fit for promotion. Not yet fit for promotion. PART-VII (a) REMAKRS OF COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER In view of reporting officer's recommendation, the nature of job of officer under report, should be changed to give him another try. (Sd.) ???????? Countersigning Officer"

4. Now let us see as to what remained his performance during his ACR for the period from January, 1994 to June, 1994 under a different category of officers. The said report depicts the appellant as under:-- "PART-II:??????? ' A' ????? -'Good' PART-III: In columns 1 and 2 i.e. 'Knowledge of Islam' and 'Attitude towards Islamic Ideology' the appellant was graded as 'A-1' - 'Very Good' while in the rest of the columns he was rated as ' A' - 'Good'! PART-IV 'A'??????? -'Good'??????????? . ? PART-V: (a) Pen-Picture: A good and a confident officer. Capable of handling work and takes up responsibility of any kind. Cooperative and obedient. (b) Counselling: Nil (c) Assessment of performance--Performed his duties well within sense of responsibility. Had a good grasp of knowledge in the work assigned to him. PART-VI: (a) Overall Grading By Reporting Officer ??????????????????????????? By Countersigning Officer. Good?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Good (b) Fitness for promotion: Fit for promotion in his turn.????????????????? Fit for promotion in his turn. (a) REMARKS OF THE COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER Religious but pleasant personality." (Sd. ) Countersigning Officer. ACR FOR THE PERIOD 1-1-1995 TO 31 12 1995: Overall Gradings as per Parts-II, III and IV are 'A' - 'Good' PART-V: (a) Pen-Picture: An experienced-and hardworking officer who takes pains in the discharging of his duties. (b) Counselling:???????????? Nil (c) Assessment of Nil Performance: PART-VI (a) Overall Grading By Reporting Officer??? By Countersigning Officer.???????? Good?????????????????????????????????????? Average (b) Fitness for promotion Fit for promotion in his turn. ???? Fit for promotion in his turn. PART-VII (a) REMARKS OF THE COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER: Exaggerated reporting. He is an average type. However, he made efforts to improve himself during the period under report." (Sd.) ????????? Countersigning Officer ACR FOR THE PERIOD OF 1-1-1996 TO 31-12-1996: Although overall Grading in Parts II, III and IV are 'B' - 'Average' yet in column (1) Knowledge of Islam, 2) Attitude towards Islamic ideology and 3) Integrity both General and intellectual the appellant was rated as 'A' - 'Good' and so is the case in column (10) Financial Responsibility and (12) Relations with (a) Superiors, (b) Colleagues and (c) Subordinates where he was graded ' A' - 'Good'. PART-V: "(a) Pen-picture: A religious minded, middle aged officer promoted from the ranks. Takes reasonable interest in his work. Has reached his ceiling. Suitable for ordinary/light desk job. (The words "Has reached his ceiling" have been underlined by me and are wrong. The appellant has not reached his ceiling.) (b) Counselling: ??????????? Nil. (c) Assessment of performance:--The Officer performed his duties satisfactorily to the best of his ability. PART-VI: (a) Overall Grading By Reporting Officer.? ? By Countersigning Officer. Average?????????????????????????????????????????????? Average (b) Fitness for promotion. Fit for promotion in his turn. ???? Fit for promotion in his turn. PART-VII (a) REMARKS OF THE COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER. I agree with the Reporting Officer. Having worked mostly as a transcriber/translator at Headquarters, the officer could not develop professionally for higher ranks. During the last six months or so he was involved in running Junior Courses and with the guidance of seniors did pick up some knowledge and experience but has a long way to go because of his basic limitations." (Sd. ) ????????? Countersigning Officer ACR FOR THE PERIOD 1-1-1997 TO 31-12-1997: The Overall Gradings as per Part-II to Part IV are 'A' - 'Good' while in Part-III at Serial Nos.l to 3, relating to 'Knowledge of Islam, Attitude towards Islamic ideology and Integrity' the appellant is rated as ' A 1' - 'Very Good'. PART-V: (a) Pen-picture: A religious minded person having affiliations with 'Tableeghi Jamaat'. Performs his duties to the best of his ability. Needs exposure to field/desk work. Wears Pakistani dress. (b) Counselling: Nil. (c) Assessment of performance:

Made worthwhile contribution in the general supervision of technical section and a security affairs as well as on the instructional job, particularly after qualifying Advanced Intelligence Course. Part-VI: (a) Overall Grading By Reporting Officer???????????????? By Countersigning Officer Good?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Good (b) Fitness for promotion By Reporting Officer By Countersigning Officer Fit for promotion in his turn. ???? Fit for promotion in his turn. PART-VII: (A) REMAKRS OF THE COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER: I agree with the Reporting Officer." (Sd.) ????????? Countersigning Officer

5. Perusal of the appellant's ACRs for the period from 1990 to 19931 depicts him a Good Officer with no adverse entries therein.

6. The CR dossiers prove the appellant as good Officer who has been shown as ' A1 ' with respect to 'Knowledge of Islam, devotion to duty, honesty both moral and intellectual' and who made positive contributions in the office where he was posted but unfortunately for the period from 7-7-1994 to 31-12-1994 hardly six months he appears to have been condemned without any cogent and valid reasons specially when consistently he is coming to be a Good Officer since the time was recruited till his last ACR for the period from January, 1997 to December, 1997. As against this his remaining six months' ACR for the period from 1-1-1994 to June, 1994 is good and most laudable. The subsequent undeserved ACR can be due to personal reasons of both the Reporting and Countersigning. Officers for the obvious reasons that' an officer consistently earning good ACR with religious mind and deadly honest cannot be abruptly changed within a short span of six months. Such personal remarks crept in the ACR cannot be construed to the detriment of the appellant being not consistent with his entire ACRs. A small portion becomes meaningless and merged in the overall larger portion spreading over the entire service career of the appellant.

7. The appellant, a good and loyal subordinate did not lose heart but continued laudable efforts in rendering service to the entire satisfaction of his superiors who were greatly impressed by his performance and hence had no other alternative but to give him good ACRs. The adverse remarks were required to be red-lined by the concerned authority but the CR dossier does not depict the same like that. Reporting and Countersigning Officers were required to take utmost care in recording ACRs of an officer but both the officers in respect of the ACR for the period of 7-7-1994 to 31-12-1994, for reasons best known to them, blessed the officer with undeserved remarks but despite this he being conscious about his future improved0 himself excellently.

8. It was stated before us that the appeal was time barred. We have condoned the delay, if any, in filing the appeal and let a technicality shall not stand in way of an officer specially when he appears to be at the fag-end of his service career being retiring from service in April, 2002. The appellant though intellectually and morally is of high calibre yet physically he appears to be a simple and unassuming person with white beard and such like personalities can deliver the requisite goods more excellently than others specially in a department like Intelligence Bureau but it appears that both the Reporting and Countersigning Officers, just possible, might not be liking him due to his apparent humble appearance. [Al-Faqru Fkhary] as goes the tradition, according to which humility is sign of greatness and not the otherwise. The Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was proud of humility and hence noble souls follow him.

9. Reportedly the appellant has got full command over Arabic Language. His "Advanced Course Performance" which he had undergone from 15-2-1997 to 7-6-1997 depicts him as Good Officer who secured third position in a class of nine officers. The Management was misled by unwanted and unsavoury remarks and despite this it has been categorically stated that he would be considered for promotion alongwith others to B-18, as already quoted in verbatim at first and second pages of this judgment. Now there appears nothing impeding and hurdling in the way of his promotion to B-1.8 if considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

10. Pursuant to w at has been discussed above we are constrained to accept the appeal and hold that the appellant's alleged deferment due to his 'indifferent record of service' was totally unjustified and as such we direct that the case of the appellant shall be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee concerned for his consideration and promotion to the post of Deputy Director (B-18) with effect from the date his juniors were considered and promoted.

11. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./265/St/F????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.