1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).-The appellant was working as Inspector in Pakistan Railways Police. He was communicated adverse remarks in his A.C.R. 'for two portions for the year 1995, the first relating to the period 1-1-1995 to 29-7-1995 and the second for 30-7-1995 to 10-11-1995. In both the A.C.Rs. the Countersigning Authority had assessed the performance of the appellant in column 6(b) relating to the preventive action and action under local and special laws as below average and. therefore, the final assessment of the Reporting Officer has beer: changed by the Countersigning Officer and thus the remarks of the Countersigning Authority has been communicated to the appellant vide impugned order dated 14-12-1995. After seeking departmental remedy the present appeal has been filed.

2. The respondents contested the appeal. The preliminary legal objection raised on behalf of the respondents with regard to question of limitation needs disposal in the beginning. It is stated that the representation against the adverse remarks was decided by the competent Authority on 28-1-1996 whereas the present appeal has been filed on 5-5-1996 and so the appeal was barred by time. The appellant on the other hand alleges that the rejection letter was received by him on 25-4-1996 as the appellant had requested for personal hearing which was granted by the respondent No.1 on 24-3-1996 and that the letter of rejection was issued on 23-4-1996 which was received by the appellant on 25-4-1996 and thus the present appeal filed on 5-5-1996 was within time but even then an application for condonation of delay has been filed supported by an affidavit. The respondents have not proved by any counter-affidavit or any other evidence that the said letter of rejection dated 28-1-'' 1996 was delivered to the appellant. The simple reference to an earlier letter in a subsequent one does not prove that the earlier letter was definitely received by the person concerned to have fully acknowledged of the contents thereof. The respondent department decided the subsequent appeal on merits and not on technical grounds. Hearing was admittedly allowed to the appellant during the period between 28-1-1996 and 23-4-1996 and these were sufficient reasons for the appellant to believe that his departmental appeal was being processed and thus the time does not run against him. However, even in the adverse situation, the application for condonation of delay has been filed and the above grounds are sufficient to condone intervening period of delay. Hence there is no bar in the acceptance of the application and the delay, if any, stands condoned.

3. The merits of the case are that two reports have been prepared during the year 1995 with regard to the performance of the appellant. The first portion of the A.C.R. for the period 1-1-1995 to 29-7-1995 shows that the Reporting Officer has -graded the appellant as above average with regard to performance as a civil servant. The personal traits have been graded as good. Finally, the appellant was graded as ' A' and found fit for promotion by the Reporting Officer with the general remarks, "hard working intelligent, smart and a good Police Officer". This assessment of the Reporting Officer has been changed by the Countersigning Officer to the extent that the assessment of column 6(b) has been shown as below average, the class of report has been modified from A to B and the final assessment in the general remarks has been recorded as "an average type of Officer who did not do much in the Crime Branch. Detection of local/special laws cases was poor." Thus the remarks of the Countersigning Officer and the overall grading as ' B' conclusively determination that the, report was not adverse and he was assessed as average officer. The assessment of below average in the said column of column 6 does not degrade the entire assessment where the appellant is also assessed to be good, honest hard working, etc. Entry against one column with specially not have any effect in view of the overall grading in column 18 and general remarks in column 20 and, therefore, the assessment of below average in column 6(b) will merge in the said to entries and thus the report for the period 1-1-1995 to 29-7-1995 will be termed as an average one.

4. The second portion of the report for the year 1995 covering the period from 29-7-1995 to 10-11-1995 also shows that the assessment of general official performance of the appellant by the Reporting Officer was either average or above average and the personal traits have been assessed as good. He was found fit for promotion and the Reporting Officer remarked that he is a subservient and hard worker takes, keen interest in his official duties. The Countersigning Officer has again rated column 6(b) only as below average. However, he has agreed with the overall grading as 'B' and assessment of personal traits as good and has finally assessment is performance just satisfactory. Working of local/special laws poor. Thus, the general remarks and the overall grading can be estimated as average and the entry of below average contained in column 6(b) merges that the said final grading. Hence the analysis by both the portions of the A.C.R. show that the appellant was rated as an average officer and the average report is not considered to be adverse as per decision of the superior Courts.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the perusal of entire service record of the appellant show that he was charged for certain offences earlier arid was also issued a warning and that the appellant had not satisfactory record of service. Warning is a penalty though minor one and such a minor penalty may have its effect in due course of time but the imposition of penalty of censure does not justify the degradation of the A.C.R. in a subsequent order without any fresh cause. Every unsatisfactory incident in the service career has its own consequence but those are not subject-matters of dispute in this appeal.

6. The result is that we accept this appeal and direct that the A.C.R. pertaining to the period 1-1-1995 to 29-7-1995 and 30-7-1995 to 10-I1-1995 may be treated as average and adverse entry in column 6(b) stands expunged.

7. No order as to costs.

8. Parties be informed. H.B.T./99/Sr.F Appeal accepted.