1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"He did not pay due attention towards survey work. Besides following assignments have not been completed by him. (1) Monthly returns not received in time. (2) Service verification from AGPR and verification of antecedent from? police. (3) Arrangement of forms. (4) Renewal of agreement of buildings. (5) Condemnation of store items." The appellant in his departmental representation, dated 8th June, 1993 refuted each charge by giving detailed explanation as under: (1) Survey Work.‑‑‑Survey Work from 8‑8‑1992 to 15‑1‑1993 had been completed on 15‑1‑1993 as desired by the HQ and certificate had been submitted to HQ. (2) Monthly returns.‑‑‑Necessary monthly returns of Tech./Survey work side as well as Admn. side had been despatched in time and the record is available in Regional Registration Office, Karachi and HQ at Islamabad. (3) Service verification.‑‑‑The service books of all employees duly prepared were submitted to AGPR, Karachi for verification on 17‑3‑1993, and the Director and Deputy Director during their visit found correct and appended a note to this effect. Furthermore, the antecedents of the employees had also been completed and checked by the Director during their visit. (4) Arrangement of forms.‑‑‑The Registration Forms had been arranged and properly placed and the Director personally visited the same and found in order, and certificate in this respect had been sent to HQ vide letters dated 15‑2‑1992 and 2‑5‑1993. (5) Renewal of agreement of buildings: ‑‑The matter had been brought to the notice of the HQ as well as Deputy Director, Sindh, DRO that the owners of the buildings were not willing to execute further agreement on the Government prevailing rates. However, new building had been located and report therefore had been duly sent to HQ and the DD, Sindh, RRO vide letter dated 18‑3‑1993 and the matter was pending at Headquarter. (6) Condemnation of store items.‑‑‑List of such items duly prepared had been sent to HQ for approval which was still awaited. From the abovementioned facts, it is clear that none of the remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer was called for and were baseless and not sustainable and are expunged. As regards the `Below Average' rating recorded is Part III, column 11 `Perseverance and devotion to duty', and Part IV, column 6 `Work (a) Output and (b) Quality', these ratings when read with other gradings in Part III, columns 4 and 5 and in Part IV, columns 2 and 3 where for grading is `Average' there is clear‑cut inconsistency in the ratings, and such an assessment cannot be termed as an objective assessment made with due application of mind. We, therefore, hold that the `Below Average' grading given by the reporting officer and duly agreed by the countersigning officer, have been recorded with bias only to lower down the quantification marks of the appellant, and the result is that all the `Below Average' grading are expunged and shall be treated as `Average'.

6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and remarks in column (c) Part V, and `Below Average' in column 11, Part III and column 6(a) and (b) in Part IV are expunged. H.B.T./997/Sr.F?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.