1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal, as stated in the Memorandum of Appeal and gathered from the record, briefly are, that the appellant was posted as Assistant Director Artificial Insemination Jhang, in the year 1982. He was conveyed following adverse remarks vide D.

0. No. 190 dated 15‑5‑1985:‑ "Pen Picture. (a) He is not fit to be retained posted on the present job. He is having no knowledge perform the present assignment. He needs strict supervision/ guidance. He needs to be posted under direct supervision job, so that a check may help him to improve for his future betterment. (b) Counselling.‑‑Was the officer advised to improve vide instruction No.6 during the period under report. If so on what aspect and with what results. Yes. On the administrative and budgetary matters. (c) He is not an officer to find out solution to difficult problems due to his limited knowledge/intelligence." The appellant made a representation to Respondent No.l for expunction of the said remarks, which was considered and rejected vide Memo dated 12‑5‑1986, attached as Annexure 'D'. This way the appellant was constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The submission of the appellant's are as under:‑ (a) The Deputy Director, who made the adverse remarks through‑out his service, served in the Head Office and knew little about the field work. (b) The remarks were conveyed to the appellant after a lapse of 3 years. (c) The remarks are contradicted by the other A.C.Rs. and particularly by other documents pertaining to the same year. (d) The remarks are unrealistic.

2. On the other hand learned District Attorney has relied on the comments and justification report rendered by the Reporting officer and contended that there is no material in the appeal and the same may be dismissed. .

3. Now I proceed to take up the contentions of the appellant one by one. Firstly, the argument of the appellant is that his Reporting Officer had no field experience. I am afraid that there is nothing on the file to support the contention of the appellant. The second, submission that according to the instructions for writing of A.C.Rs., issued by the S G A & I Department, the Reporting officer has committed following violations of instructions while completing A.C.R under appeal:‑ (1) He has completed the report in a very reckless and negligent manner. He has not given his name in the column provided for the purpose. He has failed to counsel the appellant. The Reporting Officer has stated in the justification that the appellant was counselled through letter dated 22‑12‑1982. But when I look at the period of the A. C. R. then this counselling at the fag end of the year is without any object. (2) The adverse remarks should have been communicated to the appellant within one month of the date the report was countersigned and completed as per instruction No.34, with regard to writing of A. C. Rs. circulated by S & G A D through letter dated 12‑2‑1968. I am constrained to point out that the Reporting Officer failed to discharge his legal obligation. This renders him liable to suffer as per instruction No.37, which reads as under:‑ "In the C.R. Dossier of the person responsible for failure or delay in communication of such report, adverse entry should be recorded which would be in addition to disciplinary action required to be taken in para 34 and this should take its course. "

4. I am constrained to point out that I have noted that in large number of cases, Reporting Officers are either totally unaware of the prescribed instructions on the subject or they do not care to follow the same rigidly. The reports are mostly written in complete defiance of the instructions issued by Government vide circular dated 12‑2‑1968. If the Government wants to achieve the desired results then defaulting officers should be dealt with and penal action taken against them under these instructions. Until and unless the Reporting Officers are made aware of the consequences in not following these instructions they are unlikely to take the instructions seriously. It is, therefore, advisable that the violation of the instructions should not go unchecked and the officers responsible be proceeded against under instruction No.37 and even under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975.

5. Now returning to the contention of the appellant as to the failure of Reporting Officer to follow the instructions, I am afraid it does not help the appellant and only justify the action against the Reporting Officer as indicated above. Therefore, this point is of no help to the appellant.

6. Now I take up the third contention and most important argument of the appellant that the work of the appellant was considered satisfactory and praiseworthy. A reference is made firstly to the certificate dated 2‑1‑1983, of the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, and secondly to the order granting honorarium of Rs.400 for extra and laborious work done by the appellant after office hours and thirdly to the A.C.R, for the year 1983, according to which the appellant has been rated as 'Honest and hard working' by the Reporting Officer while by the countersigning Officer as 'efficient organizer'. In overall grading he was placed by both the officers as better than the majority of the officers. The appellant maintained the same grading in the year 1984, and in that the Reporting Officer and countersigning Officer found him fit for promotion.

7. These reports pertaining to the subsequent period and certificate of Deputy Commissioner , Jhang and earning of honorarium for the same period, clearly contradicts the impugned adverse remarks. I have gone through the comments of the respondents. Main reliance is on the letter referred to by the Reporting Officer, that necessary counselling rendered by him to the appellant and that it was discovered in the year 1983, that the appellant had over charged his T.A. As far the letter dated 22‑12‑1982, is concerned, I have already discussed the same. It is of no consequence, as at the fag end of the year the counselling or finding fault with the officer does not help him, to achieve the desired result. The other point that the appellant over charged T. A., the respondents have failed to bring on record the result of the allegations and on the other hand the two A. C. Rs. for 1983 and 1984 placed on record clearly belies the allegation.

8. The upshot of the discussion is that I hold that the impugned adverse remarks are unjustified and inconsistent with the other documents available on record, and therefore, expunge the same by accepting this appeal. No order as to costs. M.Y.H./167/Sr.P Appeal accepted.