1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

PART V (a) Pen Picture: Needless to say that it is impossible to take required quantum of scientific work from Mr. Haidery, who has not got his full to devote. (b) Counselling: The officer was advised to stop doing litigation work in the office, to which officer replied that this is also official, because he has been dragged into litigation by the department not by any private party. (c) Assessment of Performance: A relatively small amount of work has been done precisely and the results are dependable. According to the reporting officer, the Overall Grading in Part VI is `Average'.

5. The Countersigning Officer, however, disagreeing with the assessment of the reporting officer graded the appellant as `Below Average' and in Part VI, the appellant was graded as `Below Average' and `Not yet fit for promotion'. In Part VII, the remarks of the Countersigning Officer were: "The assessee officer has contributed very little towards his assignment (VC). The assessee was verbally counselled by the undersigned but without any improvement in spite of his promise to improve. (2) The reporting officer's remarks are contradictory and cannot be reconciled. (I) Part VA. The officer has potential to do scientific work. He should be given some Admin work. It is impossible to take required quantum of scientific work who has not his full to devote. (II) Part II. 4 Attitude:‑‑Acceptance of responsibility‑‑Good `A' relatively small amount of work has been done part V.C. (3) Even after counselling he practically devoted his full time for preparing papers for litigation, Part V.B. During my visits to Mycology Section he was never seen doing any scientific bench work. I saw him in his section either preparing legal papers or gossiping with friends in different sections. He has not met bare minimum standard to earn even an average A.C.R. when compared with officers working in the same section. (4) The assessee officer would not be acceptable in higher grade on promotion." When the report is read as a whole, it becomes clear that it was not only the Countersigning Officer who graded the appellant. `Below Average', but the reporting officer also graded the appellant as `Below Average' in Part III under column `Perseverance and devotion to duty and `relations with the superiors' and in Part IV under column 6 `Work' (Output). He has recorded certain adverse remarks in Part V in the column Pen‑picture, Counselling and Assessment of Performance. Therefore, as far as the assessment with regard to performance of work and devotion to duty is concerned, there is no inconsistency between the opinion and assessment of the reporting officer and the countersigning officer and no element of bias or mala fide, as claimed by the appellant, can be attributed towards the countersigning officer in the absence of any documentary positive evidence. The assessment and the i remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer are the real reflections on the work and conduct of the appellant which he made by closely watching the performance and work of the appellant. The contention of the appellant that since he was working under the direct control of the ‑reporting officer, his opinion was to prevail over the Countersigning Officer, the fact is that he also graded the appellant as `Below Average' as discussed above. Admittedly, the appellant was working under the Director of Laboratories, who was local Head of the Laboratories who had the supervisory and administrative role, and the appellant never objected to it, and under the rules, the opinion of the supervisory officer always prevail over the opinion of a subordinate officer and this view is fortified from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 SCMR 1427.(Province of Punjab v. Sardar Noor Ilahi Khan Leghari), wherein it has been held: "

8. The instructions reproduced above also show that it is the remark of the higher officer which prevails over that of a subordinate. The Service Tribunal has by giving precedence to the opinion by the I.G.(P) simply because a erectly deals with him, has violated the established principle rooted in the s stems of hierarchic bureaucracy. No other fault has been found in the opinion recorded by the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary was free to record his own impressions and opinions and unless it was manifestly untenable, the same could not be substituted by the opinion formed by the Service Tribunal from the limited material that was before it during the hearing of the appeal." During the course of arguments, the appellant was directed to show us any research paper or work which he did as he was basically a scientist having a long service career, but he did not produce any such document. The cases relied upon by the appellant do not advance his case. We are of the view that the countersigning officer was right and justified in writing his assessment on 8 the work and performance of the appellant in the impugned A.C.R. and no case is made out for expunction of the remarks. There is no merit in appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑I fully agreed with the findings of my learned brother, but would like to add that even according to the assessment of the reporting officer on whose assessment the appellant has relied and based his claim for expunction of the adverse remarks, has also graded the appellant `Below Average, and pertinent reference is made to the remarks recorded by him in Part V(a) Pen‑picture " I again recommended that Mr. Hydri should be given some Admn assignment which may bound him to devote more time to genuine Government work", meaning thereby that no research work was being done by the appellant for which he was appointed and paid since decades. I would, therefore, also dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit. H.B.T./1074/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.