1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Skill in drafting Nil Integrity Dishonest (i) Incorruptable He was trying to do corruption but was not allowed. (ii) Reported to be corrupt Reports from staff received. (iii) Believed to be corrupt, because of; (a) Monetary of consideration Firm belief that he is corrupt (b) Other consideration Zero in other consideration Knowledge of official matters. Is below average Fitness of promotion He is a crafty, insolent, impudent General remarks Vulgar, Inefficient and corrupt person. He is utterly unfit for promotion. Deserves to be demoted.

3. The respondent No. 1 alongwith intimation of the above adverse remarks simultaneously also served a notice on the appellant under the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 to the effect that he had rendered himself liable to all or any of the major penalties specified in rule 4 of the said rules. The appellant was directed to file his reply within 10 days failing which it will be presumed that he had nothing to say in his defence.

4. The appellant submitted an appeal against the aforesaid adverse remarks on 14-3-1993. The respondent No. 1 sent copies of representations made. by the appellant to Mr. Shaukat Ali, Assistant Director Fisheries, Swat at Mingora vide his Memo. of 22-11-1993 for immediate necessary action. The latter in his reply to the aforesaid Memo vide his Memo dated 19-12-1993, informed respondent No. 1 as under:-- "It is submitted that what has been written in the A.C.R. of Mr. Gulzar Muhammad are my comments. The undersigned sticks to his words. ' No further comments please."

5. The respondent No. I furnished a copy of the above comments to the appellant vide his Memo. dated 16-4-1994 being self-explanatory. Hence this appeal. .

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. The appellant was appointed as Assistant (BPS-11) on 22 ,1-1990. He was given adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the year 1992 (from 1-1-1992 to 12-5-1992). No adverse remarks were recorded in his A.C.Rs. prior to the impugned A.C.R. as well as for the period thereafter. The A.C.R. for the year 1991 which contained no adverse entry against any column was also initiated by the same reporting officer who gave the appellant adverse remarks in all the columns of A.C.R. for the year 1992 (pertaining to 4-1/2 months only). It is astonishing to note that the work and conduct of the appellant, during this short period deteriorated to such an extent so as to warrant award of adverse remarks in all the aspects of the A.C.R. We are of the view that even a devil might have something good in him. The sudden all around condemnation of the work and conduct of the appellant could be due to nothing but mala fide on the part of the reporting officer. The respondent No. 1 was required to have judiciously evaluated the report, got it countersigned by the competent Authority, communicated it to the appellant and awaited the outcome of the appeal if any submitted by the appellant for the expunction of the adverse entries. Instead he served a notice on the appellant, simultaneously alongwith the communication of adverse remarks to the appellant.

8. The appellant made a representation to the respondent No. l on 14-3-1993 for the expunction of the aforesaid adverse remarks. He submitted 9 odd reminders on 20-4-1993, 24-5-1993, 28-6-1993, 24-7-1993, 29-8-1993, 19-10-1993, 17-11-1993, 28-11-1993 and 16-1-1994. The Reporting Officer sent his parawise comments to respondent No. 1 saying that he sticked to his words. No detailed justification was given in support of the adverse remarks given by him. The respondent No. 1 without applying his independent mind and deciding the case judiciously on merit deemed it fit to send a copy of the reply of the reporting officer to the appellant terming it to be self-explanatory.

9. It was the duty of the reporting officer to have counselled and guided and warned the appellant in the performance of his duties if in any case something was wanting and he had failed to improve, before the adverse remarks were recorded in his A.C.R. The respondent department could not place on record anything in this behalf. No instance was given in support of the observation that the appellant was corrupt.

10. In view of the detailed analysis as given above, this Tribunal holds that the remarks are based on mala fide and are not sustainable under the rules. The appeal is accordingly accepted with cost. File be consigned to the record. H.B.T./212/Sr./N.-W.F.P. Appeal accepted.