1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑Mohammad Saleem joined the West Pakistan Forest Class I Service on 9‑10‑1961. He was retired on 18‑3‑1972 prematurely under Martial Law Regulation No. 114.

2. We have heard both the parties and seen the Annual Confidential Reports of Mr. Muhammad Saleem.

3. The appellant's Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1962, 1964, 1965, 1969, 1970 and 1971 are adverse, The remarks for the year 1962 are by the Joint Secretary, that "his work was not up to the mark", while the Chief Conservator of Forests gave him "a good report". For the year 1964, the Conservator of Forests, Sukkur gave him an adverse remarks which the Chief Conservator of Forests considered to be biased. However, the Chief Conservator of Forests thought the officer "to be lazy and below average officer". For the year 1965 the Conservator of Forests, again gave him an adverse report which again the Chief Conservator of Forests thought "to be very biased", while maintaining his view that the officer was average who should become useful after extensive training and experience". These two reports of the Conservator Forests are not to be considered in view of the remarks of the countersigning officer that they were biased. For the second half of 1965, the Chief Conservator of Forests reported that "he needs consistent guidance and left the charge of Shikarpur Division in a mess". However in the year 1966, the same reporting officer felt consider able improvements and usefulness in the appellant. Again in 1967, he found the appellant as energetic officer who was fast-learning organization, execution and control of field work though needed training experience but had shown considerable improvement. Even in 1968, the successor of the reporting officer found him a willing worker, honest and hard working officer. For 1969 the Chief Conservator of Forests, again considered the officer "to be average who needs to learn field work". For the year 1970, the Conservator of Forests gave the appellant adverse remarks that "he did not (show output and behaved throughout mischievously". For the year 1911, the same Conservator of Forests (as‑ in 1970) gave him an adverse report which the Joint Secretary, Forests, considered to be a "very strict and biased". The countersigning authority rated the appellant as an average officer. The net result of the record of the appellant is that the report for the year 1964, 1965 and 1971 are washed out, as the countersigning officers have said that they were "very biased" or. "biased" or "biased and strict". The report for the year 1962, is "average". Parts of reports of 1969 and 1970 are again "average".

4. The appellant has contended that except for one or two reports the other reports were not communicated to him. Moreover, the record was not put up before the competent authority. For the purpose of M. L. R. 114, non‑communication of adverse remarks cannot be a major consideration except that the remarks were not considered by the superior officers to be so much adverse as to be communicated to him. The recording of the A. C. Rs. in the case gives an indication that there were party factions in the Forest Department and the appellant became a victim. Taking the reports as a whole, we feel that most of the adverse reports have been washed out by the countersigning officers on the ground that the same were biased harsh and strict. In our judgment, he was an average officer with definite indica tion of consistent improvement shown by hi‑n. He was considered in some years 1967‑69 to be useful hard working and honest. Thus, in our view, he did not merit premature retirement at this early stage more particularly when it was nowhere established that his record was duly considered by the competent authority before passing the impugned order. We, therefore, accept this appeal and direct the re‑instatement of the appellant. Appeal accepted.