2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Khalid Siddique, Excise and Taxation Officer has come in appeal bringing in challenge order dated 10-7-2003 passed by the Secretary Excise and Taxation, Punjab arraigned as respondent No.1, whereby adverse remarks given to the appellant in his Annual Confidential Report for the period 2-11-1991 to 30-6-1992 by his Reporting Officer as well as the Ist Countersigning Officer in Column IV and V of Part-II of the said Annual Confidential Report was maintained.

2. Appellant for the period extending from 2-11-1991 to 30-6-1992 while he served as Excise and Taxation Officer, Lodhran was communicated adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for the said period vide letter dated 10-7-1993 by respondent No.1. The adverse remarks awarded to the appellant in the various parts of the Annual Confidential Report are reproduced below:-- PART-II

2. Confidence and will-power Below Average

4. Adaptability. Below Average

5. Understanding and Tolerance Below Average

7. Overall Grading in Part-II. Below Average PART-V (Pen Picture) (a) A minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments has been inflicted upon him vide D.G. E&T, Punjab, Lahore s order bearing Endst: No.0195-92/1078-E(E&T)II, dated 7-5-1992. An unpredictable and unreliable officer. (b) Many time but the response was negative. PART-VI (a) Overall Grading (iv) Meets bare minimum standards (Below Average) (b) Fitness for promotion. (iii) Not yet fit for promotion. (c) Integrity Doubtful. Appellant filed an appeal to respondent No.1, who after a detailed hearing through an exhaustive order expunged the adverse remarks except those contained in Sr. Nos.4 and 5 of Part-II of the Annual Confidential Report, which related to adaptability, understanding and tolerance, which were rated below average. The reasons given by the appellate authority were that the adverse remarks were the result of the assessment of the personal qualities of the appellant by his Reporting Officer, later on, endorsed by the Countersigning Officer and therefore does not call for any interference in the absence of any objective evidence to the contrary.

3. Appellant who argued his case in person stated that on 14-9-1992, Reporting Officer awarded him adverse remarks of being rigid, inflexible and lacked ability to appreciate others, point of view while drawing his Annual Confidential Report in question. The same Reporting Officer at the time when writing the next Annual Confidential Report for the period 1-7-1992 to 28-1-1993 rated him good for the same Column Nos.4 and 5 of Part-II of the Annual Confidential Report relating to his adaptability, understanding and tolerance. Taking his arguments to its logical conclusion, it was stressed that this rapid change in the characteristics of the appellant did not occur over night rather portrayed the mala fide on the part of the Reporting Officer, fairly indicating that the remarks were not based on objective evaluation rather whim and caprice of the Reporting Officer, dominated the proceeding. Learned District Attorney could not controvert and refute the weighty arguments.

4. I have considered the arguments addressed at length by both the sides and perused the record. B

5. There is indeed logic and philosophy in the arguments raised by the appellant. The Reporting Officer dubbed the appellant when assessing his characteristics for the period from 2-11-1991 to 30-6-1992 to be rigid, inflexible and lacking ability to appreciate point of view of others but soon thereafter rated the appellant for the same characteristics as alert and highly responsible apart from being considerate the cooperative with others. This prompt change from below average to good, I am not prepared to believe, was due to any metamorphoses in the habits of the appellant taking place so suddenly, rather it clearly reflects that the Reporting Officer played a game of pick and choose as evident from the perusal of the ratings given for personal qualities in Part-II of the impugned Annual Confidential Report. The order of the appellate authority maintaining the adverse remarks on the ground that the appellant failed to dislodge the assessment and evaluation made by the Reporting Officer in the absence of any objective evidence to the contrary desires much to be said. The adverse remarks given in the Annual Confidential Report does not have any semblance of an inquiry whereby a chance is provided to the prosecution as well to the defence to prove and disprove the allegations respectively. Writing of the Annual Confidential Report, as observed, is the objective assessment and evaluation of the Reporting Officer about the personal qualities, attitudes and proficiency in job of the civil servant which is gauged by his work and performance. In other words, the civil servant has no chance whatsoever to controvert the assessment made by the Reporting Officer through any objective evidence to the contrary. The observation made by the appellate authority has no backing in law and for this reason alone the order has to be struck down. B

6. The upshot of the discussion is that the appellant has convinced me that his appeal should be accepted. Resultantly, I accept the appeal and set aside the order of respondent No.1 dated 10-7-2003 as well as the adverse remarks given by the Reporting Officer and endorsed by the Countersigning Officer in column IV and V of Part-II of the Annual Confidential Report for the period 2-11-1991 to 3-6-1992. H.B.T./1/PST Appeal accepted.