1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQUE CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The relevant facts for the decision of the appeal are that the appellant was posted as Extra Assistant Commissioner, Jhelum in the year‑1984. The following remarks were recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Jhelum, as Countersigning Officer in his ACR for the period from 1‑1‑1984 (.to 31‑12‑1984:‑ "A competent officer with a good reputation for integrity. However he is inclined to be clannish and always remained controversial on this account. It may be in the officer's own interest to seek postings outside Rawalpindi Division." It seems that these remarks or any part thereof were not treated as adverse when recorded, therefore were not conveyed to the appellant. Subsequently what happened is that the Countersigning Officer in the ACR for the year 1985 recorded some adverse remarks and the same were conveyed to the appellant. These adverse remarks for the year 1985 referred to the above mentioned remarks. The appellant filed a representation against the adverse remarks for the year 1985 and took up a plea that he was never conveyed the remarks subject matter of this appeal. It was thereafter, that the following remarks out of the above report of the countersigning Officer were treated as adverse and conveyed to the appellant: ......."He is inclined to be clannish and always remained controversial on this account.".... The appellant submitted a representation against these adverse remarks. However, the same was rejected by Respondent vide Memo dated 23‑6‑1986. The appellant feeling not satisfied decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

2. The appellant filed this appeal U/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 on 28‑7‑1986. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 25‑8‑1986. The Respondent has contested the appeal, filed written objections and controverted the plea of the appellant contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of Respondent and have gone through the original service record of the appellant and written objections filed by the Respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer are against facts and contradicted by the other parts of the report. He further argued that these remarks were not treated as adverse by the Countersigning Officer when recorded and for that reasons the same were not conveyed. But when the appellant took exception to the remarks for the year 1985, which were recorded with reference to this report and pointed out that these remarks were never conveyed to him, the Respondent in order to cover up this flaw proceeded to illegally treat the same as adverse and communicated to the appellant for the first time on 9‑4‑1986. These remarks are now subject matter of this appeal.

5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that these remarks are realistic. The remarks cannot be justified specially when taken into consideration the opening as well as closing sentence of the report recorded by the Countersigning officer as reproduced above. If the appellant was clannish then his reputation for integrity cannot be called as good. Even the remarks are likely to be expunged for being indefinite and vague.

6. We have already noted that it is not clear how and when these remarks were treated as adverse. This fact alone is sufficient to prove malice in law therefore, the remarks are to be expunged. We have gone through the remarks of the Reporting Officer viz. Assistant Commissioner, Jhelum, which read as under:‑ " ....honest, reliable and straight forward Magistrate particularly good on executive side, works with good grace." While in Part‑VI column 'Overall Grading', he has been graded both by the Reporting Officer as well as Countersigning Officer as 'Better than the majority of officers." In column Part‑VI(b) Fitness for Promotion, the Reporting Officer has declared him fit for accelerated promotion while Countersigning Officer has recommended promotion in his own turn. We may add here that the Reporting Officer has throughout placed the appellant in Category 'A'‑Good while for integrity and accepting responsibility the appellant has been treated as 'Very Good' (A‑I).

7. This way the impugned remarks are contradicted by the opening sentence as well as by other parts of the Report. Even otherwise the remarks when recorded were not treated as adverse. The same could not be subsequently treated as adverse. It was past and closed transaction which could not be reopened. This fact alone is sufficient to establish mala fide, therefore, the remarks are liable to be expunged on .this short ground alone.

8. The upshot of the discussion is that we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and expunge the remarks. There are no orders as to costs. S.Q./202/Sr.P Appeal accepted.