2001 SCMR 1707 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Adverse remarks, expunction of ‑‑‑Adverse remarks were sought to be expunged on the grounds firstly that there was an inordinate delay in communication of same and secondly that instructions With regard to recording and countersigning the same had not been followed by the Authorities‑‑‑Adverse remarks against civil servant having been communicated to him within a month of the countersigning of the same, there was no delay as alleged by the civil servant‑‑‑Instructions with regard to recording and countersigning remarks being directory and not mandatory in nature, non‑observance of the same would not adversely affect the action of the Competent Authority‑‑‑Judgment of Tribunal below could not be interfered with in circumstances. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Zaffer and another 1999 SCMR 1587 ref. Petitioner in person. Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th December, 2000. RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.‑‑‑Petitioner has impugned the order dated 28‑2‑2000, whereby his appeal before a Division Bench of High Court of Sindh was dismissed. Petitioner was working as Judicial Magistrate. He earned adverse remarks for the period 1‑10‑1996 to 31‑12‑1996, which were duly communicated to him on 1‑5‑1998. Petitioner made a representation, which failed. His service appeal also met the same fate, therefore, the present petition.

2. The petitioner submitted that the adverse remarks pertained to the period 1‑10‑1996 to 31‑12‑1996 but the same were communicated to him on 4‑5‑1998 and in such circumstances there was inordinate delay in communication of the adverse remarks and in view of the judgment of this Court reported as Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Zaffer and another 1999 SCMR 1587, the said remarks could not be used against him. It was further asserted that the instructions about the recording of ACR are that the Reporting Officer should record the same in the first week of January and the Countersigning Authority should record its remarks in the second week of January. In the instant case, instructions have not been followed, therefore, the adverse remarks may be expunged. It is lastly contended that petitioner had never earned bad report earlier nor there was any application from any quarter, challenging his integrity.

3. We have heard the petitioner at length and perused the file. We have noticed that the adverse remarks were countersigned on 5‑4‑1998 and the same were communicated to him in May, 1998. It seems that the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner within a month of the countersigning of the same. In such circumstances there was no delay as asserted by the petitioner. We have given anxious consideration to the second contention raised by the petitioner. We have noticed that the instructions relied upon are directory in nature. They could not be treated as mandatory and in such circumstances non‑observance of such instructions would not adversely affect the action of the competent authority. As far the last contention of the petitioner is concerned that there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner, we need not go into this controversy, therefore, the assertion that earlier he did not earn any bad report is irrelevant.

4. We have examined the case from each and every angle but have not been able to find anything in the judgment impugned which could persuade us to interfere. Resultantly, petition fails, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./A‑125/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.