1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER): ‑‑Appellant Mr. Rana Arshad Fahim, Senior Auditor in the office of the Accountant‑General, Punjab, Lahore, has challenged the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 1‑1‑1993 to 31‑12‑1993. These remarks were communicated to him by the Accounts Officer vide letter dated 30‑4‑1994 which he challenged through departmental representation made ‑on 14‑5‑1994, but the same was rejected vide letter dated 12‑7‑1994. He then filed this appeal before us on 24‑8‑1994.

2. We have heard Mr. Sultan Muhammad Momin, the learned counsel for the appellant. He contended that the reporting officer in all the columns graded the appellant as average and in Part IV, found him fit for promotion, but in `pen‑picture' he has recorded the adverse remarks Not obedient'. `Not cooperative', and they are inconsistent and have been recorded without proper application of mind. In Part V, the countersigning officer recorded .... `He needs improvement' and such remarks are of advisory nature.

3. The departmental representative appearing on behalf of the A.G., Punjab, requested for adjournment which was declined. He submitted that except the impugned ACR, there was no adverse ACR.

4. The appellant has been graded as `average' throughout by the reporting as well as the countersigning officer, and such grading cannot be treated as adverse and also does not affect the promotion prospects of the appellant when he has been found, `fit for promotion'. Although in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reported in 1992 SCMR 1427, appeal against average ACR is not competent before this Tribunal, but since in the column of peg‑picture, adverse entries have been recorded which were communicated to him, therefore, we have to consider the impugned ACR in its entirety: The reporting officer has found the appellant fit for promotion and while determining this factum, the overall conduct of a civil servant and, general performance about his behaviour and work is to be looked into, and a disobedient and non‑cooperative worker can hardly be considered fit fort promotion. There is another aspect of the case. The reporting officer has found the appellant as 'average' in 'Personal Traits', column 13 'Perseverance and devotion to duty', column 14 `Cooperation and tact' and column 15 'Amenability to discipline', and all these grading contradict the assessment made by the reporting officer in recording the impugned adverse remarks. The remarks recorded by the countersigning officer are of advisory 'nature and there is no end for improvement, as an efficient worker is expected to be 'more and most' efficient. We are of the view that the remarks recorded by the reporting officer in column pen‑picture. Not obedient. Not cooperative were uncalled for and are hereby expunged. H.B.T./1021/Sr.F Appeal allowed.