1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

7. Behaviour with public. --do--

8. Supervision and Guidance. Poor

9. Work (a) Output Below average. Pen picture. He likes to work on smaller and unimportant jobs but is scared of handling the larger/complex types and buildings like hospitals etc. Schemes entrusted to him move slow. I like to record that even once he stopped an Architectural Assistant to work on a priority job given by me personally to the above chap. In addition to the above, he is in the habit of writing/approaching the higher authorities direct, without seeking the permission from his Controlling Officer. Part VI Fitness for promotion.?? Not yet fit for promotion. Part VII A bit erratic and emotional at times." The appellant represented against these adverse remarks to the Secretary, Communications and Works Department on 24‑5‑1983. The representation was considered and rejected vide order dated 27‑7‑1983 of the Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. M. A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondent.

5. At the outset it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in writing of this A.C.R. of the appellant, there has been serious violation of Instruction ‑No.13 of the "instructions for filling up the A.C.R. Forms" which are printed alongwith the form of this A.C.R. and communicated to the appellant. The Instruction No‑.13 reads as follows:‑ "The Countersigning Officer should underline, 'in red ink, remarks which in his opinion are adverse and should be communicated to the officer reported upon." He has referred to photo copy of the A.C.R. in question conveyed to the appellant (Annexure 'B') and has submitted that none of the remarks of the Reporting Officer have been underlined by the counter?signing officer i.e., Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department. He has given his own evaluation of the appellant in Part VII of the report in which he did not uphold the adverse remarks of the Reporting Officer,, nor ordered the communication of these adverse remarks by underlining these in red ink. Thus, the adverse remarks of the Reporting Officer conveyed to the appellant as communicated to the appellant vide serial No.l to 9, pen‑picture and Part VI of the demi‑official letter dated 26‑4‑1983 of Deputy .Secretary (Adorn.), Communications and Works Department, are redundant, uncalled for and were not required to be communicated to the appellant. This exercise has been done in futility by the Communications and Works Department without caring to see the instructions on the subject, as well as remarks of the countersigning officer. It has been prayed by the appellant's counsel that all these remarks be struck down from the A.C.R. of the appellant. He has also submitted that even remarks of the countersigning officer. i.e., Secretary, Communications and Works Department are not adverse as in the last lines (Part VII), he has mentioned as follows:‑ "Since my personal instructions he has shown marked improvement."

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondent and has submitted that whatever the defects were observed against the appellant by the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Officer have been correctly communicated to the appellant so that he could remove these defects. Hence, no exception can be taken against these, impugned orders.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the points raised by the parties and have also perused the copy of the A. C. R. Annexure 'B' of the appeal. The instruction No.13 for filing of the A.C.Rs. printed alongwith this form reads as under:‑ "The Countersigning Officer should underline, in red ink, remarks which in his opinion are adverse and should be communicated to the officer reported upon."

7. We find that the following observations were recorded by the Countersigning Officer, Syed‑ Sibtul Hassan Shah, Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department on the report of the Reporting Officer Mr. A.D. Asad, Chief 4rchitect:‑ Part VII "A bit erratic and emotional at times. But I think with proper tact and handling he would improve in due course of time. Being fresh into the Department he needs. a bit of grooming. Since my personal instructions he has shown a marked improvement." These are the remarks which have been recorded by the Countersigning Officer and nowhere the Countersigning Officer had underlined the remarks given by the Reporting Officer for conveying to the appellant as required under the aforesaid instruction No.13. It is, thus, clear that the Countersigning Officer had not approved and upheld the remarks of the reporting officer for communication to the appellant.

8. We have no hesitation to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that adverse remarks of the reporting officer which were not approved by the countersigning officer, were not required to be communicated to the appellant and this exercise has been done in futility against the instructions which have the force of the Rules.

9. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that the adverse remarks so communicated to the appellant vide D.O. NO.CRA(C&W)2‑29/81, dated 26‑4‑1983, by the Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department, for the period 1‑1‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982 are expunged from the A.C.R. of the appellant, except the following remarks given by the Countersigning Officer as reported under Part VII of this very demi‑official letter:‑ Part VII "A bit erratic and emotional at times." We accept the appeal and the impugned orders are modified to the extent mentioned above. There will be no order as to costs. A.E./84/Sr.T??? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal partly accepted.