1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Province of Punjab v. Sardar Noor Ilahi Khan Laghari 1992 SCMR 1427 ref. Appellant in person. Niaz Ahmad Khan, Standing Counsel for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th October, 1994. ABDUL RAZZAQ A, THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑This appeal is directed against the adverse remarks recorded in A.C.R. of appellant, Mr. Muhammad Zayauddin, who is working in B‑18 as Entomologist (Aerial) for the period 1‑1‑1992 to 1‑12‑1992, communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 18th October, 1993. Being aggrieved, he made a representation dated 9‑12‑1993 but the same was rejected by the competent authority vide Memorandum dated 2nd April, 1994. He then filed this appeal on 28‑4‑1994 before this Tribunal. We have heard the appellant who argued his appeal himself. It is contended that there was no counselling or warning with regard to his assessment of performance was ever given and the remarks which have been communicated cannot at all be treated as adverse. It is also submitted that in some of the columns, he has been graded as `Good' and Overall Grading is `Average', therefore, these remarks have unnecessarily been communicated when he was found fit for promotion and an average officer by both the reporting and the countersigning officers.

3. Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, learned Standing Counsel has frankly stated that these remarks should not have been communicated when the reporting officer has himself assessed him `so, so' which are consistent with the other gradings of other columns.

4. We have carefully perused the ACR. The reporting officer in Parts II, III and IV, in columns `Intelligence' and Confidence and will power', `knowledge of Islam', `Attitude towards Islamic Ideology', `Integrity (a) General and (b) Intellectual', Foresight', `Financial responsibility' and `Knowledge of Work' has been graded as `Good', whereas `Overall Grading' is average and `Fit for promotion in his turn'. In Part V, column (a) Pen‑Picture, the reporting officer has remarked `Fit for Khairpur area'; in column (b) Counselling `Not applicable' and in column (c) Assessment .of Performance, `His performance is so so'. In Part VII, the countersigning officer has remarked `I agree with the Reporting Officer. Remarks at Part V(c) are showing that reporting officer is not satisfied with the performance of the officer'; but in spite of that, he has agreed with the overall assessment `Average' and `Fit for promotion in his turn', recorded by the reporting officer. The report read as a whole, and the ratings recorded by the reporting officer are compared with each other, there appears nothing adverse against the appellant, and particularly when the reporting officer has himself given him `Good' in some columns and overall grading is average. The countersigning officer has also agreed with the ‑ assessment of the reporting officer in all columns and in case he had some different opinion, he should have disagreed with the assessment of the reporting officer and as required under the rules should have also scored out the relevant gradings, according to his own assessment. This not having been done, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. Since the report is `average', therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported irt1992 SCM (Province of Punjab v. Sardar Noor Ilahi Khan Laghari), is appeal is incompetent before this Tribunal. But we cannot overlook the fact that the impugned A.C.R. has been communicated as being adverse, and while rejecting the departmental representation for expunction of adverse remarks, the competent Authority has clearly stated that the adverse remarks given in the A.C.R. of 1992 will stay, therefore, we are of the view that no adverse inference shall be drawn from the remarks contained in the ACR of 1992 against the appellant and will not be used against him, and this A.C.R. shall be treated as `Average'. With these observations, the appeal succeeds in the above terms. H.B.T./1013/Sr.F Appeal accepted.