1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Muhammad Saeed Akhtar Bhutta, Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) Jhang, has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab. SGA& I Department, Lahore, as respondent. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 7-6-1984 and. 17-9-1984, be set aside and the adverse remarks be expunged 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the A. C. R. for the period 1-1-1983 to 20-7-1983, the appellant was reported .upon as under:- PART III "Ability to produce constructive ideas. Initiative and Drive. Below Average PART IV Knowledge of work ) Analytical ability ) Supervision and Guidance ) Below Average Ability to take decision. ) work a) Output ) b) Quality ) Overall Grading in Part IV. ) The appellant filed a representation to the next higher authority which was considered and rejected. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the entire record carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks were not justified as the appellant has been working as Assistant to Commissioner (G) for the period from 1-1-1983 to 20-7-1983, and there was no occasion where the learned Commissioner D.G. Khan expressed his dis-satisfaction over the appellant's performance in any particular case. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Reporting Officer did not support or justify the adverse remarks in question by giving any material or specific instances. It was further pointed that the Reporting Officer when called upon to make his comments, even recommended that the remarks should not be conveyed to the appellant as the same are not adverse. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the un-controverted facts that when the appellant had been working as Assistant to Commissioner (G) in the office of Commissioner, D.G. Khan, under the same Reporting Officer from June, 1582 to July, 1983, he gave him good report for the said period because of the appellant's satisfactory performance as such. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further pointed that the appellant joined service in PCS Cadre in the year 1967 and throughout his career there does not exist any adverse remarks on the record of the appellant and all the Deputy Commissioners, Commissioners and Sessions Judges were fully happy over the appellant's judicial as well as administrative performance. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that when the Commissioner was called upon to give his justification for the impugned adverse remarks he did observe that the remarks were not intended to be adverse and the question of their being conveyed to the appellant did not arise. However, after examining the remarks recorded by the Commissioner, he was intimated that these remarks may be reconsidered and he should give his further comments and it was only then that the Commissioner after re-examining the case, submitted that he would not change his position as it was not possible for him to do so. In view of this the learned District Attorney has submitted that the adverse remarks so given by the said Commissioner be maintained. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find, after going through the entire service record of the appellant, that his claim that he has unblemished record of service, was absolutely correct, and the same is admitted in para 3 of the comments of the respondent. We have examined the comments of the learned Commissioner and find that when he was asked to give his opinion regarding adverse remarks so given by him for the period under appeal, he did submit that none of the remarks given by him in respect of the appellant, were intended to be adverse and the question of their being conveyed to him, did not arise. This being so there was hardly any necessity for the respondent to ask for further clarification as it would be embarrassing for the officer of the status of the Commissioner to change his writing what he had already done, but at the same time his intention was very clear on the subject and he candidly admitted that what was said about the appellant, was not the intention of the said Commissioner and therefore, these remarks be considered as not adverse and should not have been communicated to him. It seems that there has occurred some mistake somewhere, while signing the ACR by the said Commissioner as the very Commissioner has reported favourably for the next six months of the same year. We have further examined the record of the appellant and find that the said learned Commissioner gave him good report in the year 1982, when he was working under him from June 1982 to July, 1983 at D.G. Khan, the impugned adverse remarks will not be justified. We are fortified to observe that the appellant joined service in 1967 and throughout his service career has earned good reports from all of his Deputy Commissioners, Commissioners and Sessions Judges and was hardly considered as below average in the columns so mentioned by the learned Commissioner because the very learned Commissioner had appreciated his work earlier and when called upon to comment on the said remarks so given by him, had conceded that they were never meant to be adverse under any circumstances and should not have been conveyed to the said officer, therefore, to retain the same on his dossier, would be an act, unjustified and against the true picture of his unblemished career earlier and after the said remarks. We have no hesitation to hold that these remarks came into existence due to some error which crept in the mind of the Commissioner at the relevant time and to which he only stuck when it was pointed out to him by the respondent that how he was going to absolve him from this assessment when the same was duly signed by him. In these peculiar circumstances the natural corllary would be that the learned Commissioner would not like to find himself in an embarrassing position as to disown the writing to which he has so contributed even due to some mistake. 8. There is no denial of the fact that adverse assessment made against an officer is always to be justified by the Reporting Officer as, such assessment against a civil servant goes a long way in jeopardizing his future career for all times to come. This Tribunal has always upheld such like assessments when it was found that the Reporting Officer had cogent reasons either due to his personal knowledge or for concrete instances in support of the same, which compelled him to make such observation against his subordinates but where this Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Reporting Officer failed to justify his assessment on the above mentioned principle, had always struck down the same in order to do justice to the case of a civil servant, who did not deserve for the same. In this particular case we are very much impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that undoubtedly the appellant had unblemished record of service since he joined the same and even before this entry so made against him for the period from 1-1-1983 to 6-7-1983 he again secured favourable reports from his superiors and the very learned Commissioner, when called upon to make his comments was candid enough to observe that these remarks were never meant as adverse. 9. In view of the special circumstances of this case as discussed in the earlier part of our judgment, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the impugned adverse remarks be expunged from the ACR of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. S.Q./204/Sr.P Appeal accepted.