1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SARFRAZ HASSAN (MEMBER). ‑‑Muhammad Shafi, Senior Trade Instructor (Mechanical) Government Vocational Institute, Gujrat has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974 in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department as respondent.

2. In this appeal Muhammad Shafi has prayed that adverse remarks for the period 1‑4‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982 conveyed to him vide Letter No. 3‑44/Lab‑IV/84, dated 24‑2‑1985 from the Deputy Secretary (Admn) and final order dated 13‑2‑1986 conveying rejection of his appeal may be set aside.

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the period 1‑4‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982 vide Letter No.3‑44/Lab‑IV/84, dated 24‑2‑1985 from the Deputy Secretary (Admn) to the appellant as under:‑ "I am directed to say that the Annual Confidential Report for the year ending December 1982 (from 1‑4‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982) is generally average. However, the following adverse remarks have been recorded in it:‑ Part IV (2) Knowledge of work (Below average) Part V. Requires improvement in technical knowledge by refresher course." On 19‑3‑1985 the appellant Submitted a representation to Secretary Labour Department against the abovementioned adverse remarks. In his comments on the representation, the Reporting Officer wrote that the remarks were of an advisory nature and may be expunged. However, vide his Letter No. GVI/GRT/1448‑A dated 13‑2‑1986, the Principal Government Vocational Institute Gujrat wrote to the appellant that his representation had been rejected by the appellate authority. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy District Attorney and have also perused the record carefully with their assistance.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the following main points: ‑ (i) The adverse remarks conveyed to the appellant were factually incorrect. The appellant had full knowledge of work. This was proved by the fact that the classes taught by him showed 100$ pass results. Therefore, his knowledge of work could not be "blow average" (ii) The same Reporting Officer had written "average". against column 6 pertaining to "output and quality of the work". His knowledge of work could not therefore be considered "below average". The remarks given by the Reporting Officer were inconsistent and contradictory. (iii) As regards the remarks requires improvement in technical knowledge by refresher course", there was always room for improvement and such remarks could not therefore be treated as adverse. Moreover, the Punjab Service Tribunal had already held that remarks such as "needs improvement" should not be treated as adverse. (iv) The appellant had already done man last refresher courses. The last refresher course attended by him was from 7‑8‑1982 to and its result was declared in 1983. (v) The adverse remarks were conveyed to the appellant with the remarks that his report for the period 1‑4‑1982 t0 31‑2‑1982 was "generally average". However, the complete A.C.R. for the period was not supplied to the appellant in accordance with Government instructions. (vi) In his comments on the appellant's reply, the Reporting Officer had stated that the remarks were intended as advisory in nature and may be expunged.

6. The learned Deputy District Attorney adopted the written objections filed by the department and submitted that the appeal had no merit in it and may therefore be dismissed.

7. On careful examination of submissions made by both sides and perusal of the record, we have come to the conclusion that remarks "requires improvement in technical knowledge by refresher course") should be treated as advisory in nature and not as adverse remarks. However, the appellant's failure in the technical Training Course attended by him from 7‑8‑1982 to 29‑1‑1983 has confirmed the adverse remark "below average" against column for "knowledge of work" and provides sufficient justification for its retention. In this connection attention is invited to the following main points:‑ (i) It has been argued that if the appellant's "output and quality of work" were "average", his knowledge of work could not be "below average." However, an officer's output and quality do not depend entirely on his level of knowledge. An Officer with above average knowledge of his work may produce only average results due to lack of sufficient interest in the work entrusted to him. Conversely, an officer with "below average" knowledge of work may achieve average results due to extra hard work and application of mind. Therefore, output and quality of work do not depend entirely on an officer's knowledge of work; much depends on his hard work and application of mind. Knowledge of work and application of that knowledge are not the same thing. (ii) The pass percentage results attached with the appeal do not cover the period under report. (iii) According to the written objections filed by the respondents, the appellant failed in the final test of the Training Course attended by him from 7‑8‑1982 to 29‑1‑1983 and this has not been denied by the appellant. The period from 7‑8‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982 is also covered by the report under dispute. Although the adverse remark 'below average' against column for "knowledge of work" was recorded earlier, the appellant's failure in the Technical Training Course attended by him during the period under report has confirmed the adverse remarks recorded earlier and provides sufficient justification for its retention. (iv) In his comments on the appellant's representation, the Reporting officer vide his Letter No.GVI/GRT/PF/579, dated 16‑4‑1985 to the Director Manpower and Training, Punjab stated as under:‑ "The remarks were recorded in his A.C.R. for improving his Technical Training ability and these were of advisory in nature. These may please be expunged." Although the remark 'below average' against column for "knowledge of work" is obviously adverse and not advisory in nature, the remarks "requires improvement in technical knowledge by refresher course" are advisory in nature. In Appeal No.308/78 decided by this Tribunal on 28‑6‑1979 and reported vide 1988 P L C (C.S.) 232 and Appeal No.2 of 1980 reported vide 1980 P L C (C.S.) 375 this Tribunal held that remarks "needs to be watched" should not be treated as adverse. In the present case the remarks "requires improvement in technical knowledge by refresher course" are much milder than the remarks "needs to be watched". Therefore, in view of the abovementioned decisions of this Tribunal, the remarks "requires improvement in technical knowledge by refresher course" cannot be treated as adverse.

8. Keeping in view the detailed analysis of the case given above, we accept the appeal to the extent that the adverse remarks "requires improvement in technical knowledge by refresher course" shall be treated as advisory in nature and not as adverse. However, the remark "below average" against column for "knowledge of work" shall stay on record as an adverse remark. There are no orders as to costs. M.Y.H. /168/Sr.P Appeal partly accepted.