1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).‑‑‑By way of this appeal, the appellant Mr. Farooq Amin Qureshi, seeks expunction of certain adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 1‑1‑1989 to 27‑4‑1989.

2. The appellant while posted as SSP, Sukkur was given the following adverse remarks by the reporting officer recorded column Part VI, and his over‑all performance was `average': (b)(iii). "Not yet fit for promotion." The countersigning officer recorded the following remarks in Part VII:‑ "An officer of barely average ability and integrity. Working as Sukkur, was just about average." The abovementioned adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 18th March, 1990, against which the appellant made departmental representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, which was reject by order dated 31‑3‑1991. Hence this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant during his tenure as SSP, Sukkur, had rendered meritorious service and appreciation whereof he was allotted a 400 yds. Plot and various commendation certificates. Therefore, the adverse remarks were uncalled for. He also referred to the comments offered by the reporting officer and the countersigning officer on the representation made by the appellant against the, adverse remarks. He requested the Tribunal to peruse the relevant record I the case.

4. The appeal has been resisted by the respondent No. 1, who is Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and they have filed written objections. f paragraph 10 of the comments, they have stated that ACR is recorded by the reporting officer and the countersigning officer in view of general assessment of the work and conduct of the officer and since both the officers had reordered adverse remarks, the representation of the appellant was properly rejection The Establishment Division, who is respondent No. 2, has not Died written objections. Moreover, they are pro forma respondents in this case. Mr. Nil: Ahmad Khan, Advocate, representing the respondents No. 1 and 2 produce the record of the case and submitted that the matter may be decided in the light of the comments filed by the respondents.

5. We have given our consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the departmental file produced 64 the departmental representative. The appellant had made a department representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, against the adverse remarks, whereupon the comments of both the reporting and the countersigning officers were called, and they are reproduced as under:‑ Reporting Officer (DIG, Headquarters Sindh) "The remarks awarded in Part VI (b)(iii), keeping in view to the fact that the officer had been promoted in 1987 only and requires considerable experience before he matures for a senior post." Countersigning Officer (IGP. Sindh): "It is not understood which of my comments or grading was viewed as adverse. It can only be presumed that my assessment of the suitability of Mr. Farooq Amin Qureshi for promotion was treated as adverse. If my presumption is correct, the view is not justified. The officer was declared "Not yet fit for promotion" because his last promotion had taken place only two years ago. If any observation of mine in Part VII was considered adverse it should not have been because Average reports, according to rules, are not to be treated as adverse." The Chief Secretary, Sindh did not agree to the expunction of the adverse remarks and rejected the representation of the appellant, in spite of the comments and observations of the reporting and the countersigning officers under whom the appellant was directly performing the functions of the SSP and they were the best judge of his performance. The Chief Secretary had hardly any occasion to supervise the work and assess his performance and rejection of the representation without any plausible and cogent ground was not justified. In view of the clarification by the reporting officer and the countersigning officer about the adverse remarks of the appellant, there remains hardly anything adverse, which could stand in the way of the appellant. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant as SSP, Sukkur worked under two Reporting Officers ‑‑one from 1‑1‑1989 to 27‑4‑1989 and the other from 28‑4‑1989 to 5‑8‑1989 and the Countersigning Officer was the same but the adverse remarks have been recorded only for the period 1‑1‑1989 to 27‑4‑1989 and the rest of the period of the calendar year was alright, as it wash not communicated to the appellant. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, at the Bar that there is no other adverse entries in the service record] of the appellant, except the impugned remarks. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and expunge the adverse remarks for the period 1‑1‑1989 to 27‑4‑1989, as if they never existed on the ACR dossier of the appellant. No l order as to costs. H.B.T./884/Sr.F Appeal allowed.