1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (MEMBER).‑‑‑This appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service. Tribunals Act, 1974 is directed against the following adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the appellant for the period 30‑5‑1985 to 31‑12‑1985:‑‑

3. Integrity. (a) General = Below average (b) Intellectual = ‑do-

2. Knowledge of work = Below average (a) Pen‑picture: Talked about his indulgence in corrupt ways. Needs to be kept under constant watch. Conduct and work not satisfactory. Needs improvement. (b) Counselling: was counselled to maintain his reputation, but has failed to do so. PART VI (a) Overall grading: Meets bare minimum standards (below average) (b) Fitness for promotion: Not yet fit for promotion."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the validity of the impugned adverse remarks on the ground that they were without basis and suffered from inherent infirmities and contradictions. It was contended that there was no complaint against the appellant and the Reporting Officer had no material with him for assessing the appellant's integrity as `below average'. Learned counsel vehemently argued that at least the intellectual integrity of the appellant could not have been placed as 'below average' in view of `average' rating of his personal qualities and attitudes such as intelligence, acceptance of responsibility, reliability under pressure, judgment, financial responsibility and the quality of his work. Adverse remarks on the appellant's knowledge of work was also questioned on the premises that it was not justified by other remarks of the Reporting Officer under Part IV of the ACR (Proficiency in job) particularly the assessment made about the output and quality of his work. As regards the adverse remarks made in the pen‑picture and the counselling, the submission made was that no complaint was made against the appellant nor was he confronted with any and that no advice or counselling was imparted to him during the period under Report. It was further submitted that ‑ the Reporting Officer having rated the output and quality of the appellant's work as average, his observation in, the pen‑picture that the appellant's work was not satisfactory was not quite justified. Exception was also taken to the overall grading of the appellant in Part VI as `below average'. It was maintained that this grading was not in conformity with the entries in the relevant columns under Parts II, III and IV of the ACR. With respect to the remarks `Not yet fit for promotion' the only submission made on behalf of the appellant was that having joined the service in that very year, he was not yet due for promotion and, therefore, the impugned remarks were not called for.

3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, of course, was that the Reporting Officer being the supervising and appellate authority of the appellant must have had personal knowledge about his work, conduct and reputation and, therefore, his assessment reflected in the impugned remarks was not open to any exception particularly when there was no allegation of any ill‑will or malice against him.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the adverse remarks relating to the moral integrity of the appellant and his reputation of `indulgence in corrupt ways'. These remarks as rightly contended on behalf of the respondents must have been based on personal knowledge and information of the Reporting Officer who had even rendered a counselling to the appellant to maintain his reputation though it had no effect. The appellant denied having received any counselling but we have no reason to disbelieve the Reporting Officer who specifically stated in the relevant column of the ACR that the appellant was counselled to maintain his reputation but he failed to do so. Be that as it may, in the absence of any allegation of malice or ill‑will against the Reporting Officer, no legitimate exception could be taken to his rating the appellant's general integrity as `below average' and what he said in the pen -picture about the appellant's reputation and conduct. We, however, find merit in the appellant's contention that the adverse remarks regarding his `intellectual integrity', `knowledge of work' and `overall grading' in Part VI suffers from inherent contradictions. `Below average' grading of intellectual integrity was not quite consistent with `average' rating of personal qualities and attitudes mentioned in Parts II and III of the ACR. `Intellectual integrity', it may be stated, is not an isolated phenomena. It has got to be adjudged keeping in view other qualities/attitudes and overall performance of the officer. In the instant case, personal qualities and attitudes of 'the appellant were rated `average'. In the circumstances, the `intellectual integrity, in the absence of any serious flaw in the work and performance of the appellant, could not have been graded `below average'. Similarly, adverse remark regarding the appellant's knowledge of work is contradicted by the assessment of his work, output and quality whereof have been rated as `average'. Refer Part IV, column 6 of the ACR. If the appellant's knowledge of work was `below average', his output and particularly the quality of his work would also have been `below average'. We are also inclined to take the view that since the output and quality of work of the appellant have been rated `average', the observation in the pen‑picture `work not satisfactory' should not be treated as adverse. It was only intended to impress upon the appellant that his work needed further improvement and in fact it was so stated. Overall grading of the appellant under Part VI (`below average') also cannot be sustained as it was inconsistent with the entries in the corresponding columns of Parts II, III and IV of the ACR in all of which, overall grading was `average'. Needless to observe that when ‑making general assessment under Part VI, the overall gradings in Parts II, III and IV would have to be kept in view. As regards the remark `Not yet fit for promotion', it is true that the appellant was not yet due for promotion but in the context of overall report particularly the adverse remarks regarding his moral integrity and reputation of indulgence in corrupt ways, the impugned remark was eminently justified as it only highlighted that even if the appellant had been ripe for promotion, he was not fit for promotion.

5. Upshot of the above discussion is that the adverse remarks regarding the appellant's integrity (General) recorded against column 3(a) under Part III, his reputation of indulgence in corrupt ways and his conduct (recorded in pen -picture under Part V(a) as also the observation regarding the counselling recorded under Part V(b) and the assessment `Not yet fit for promotion' made under Part VI(b) are maintained whereas the remaining adverse remarks are expunged with the direction that the intellectual integrity (Part III, Column 3(b)), his knowledge of work (Part IV Column 2) and overall grading (Part VI(a)) be rated as `Average'. The appeal is thus partly allowed in these terms. A.A./4/PSJST Appeal partly allowed.