Find a Lawyer

Service Appeals Nos.53 and 4 of 2007, decided on 11th March, 2010.

----S. 4---Civil service---Adverse remarks, expunction of---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Case of the appellant for promotion was deferred for the reasons of his marks being less than minimum threshold and adverse remarks in his ACRs---Alleged adverse remarks were neither lenient nor advisory in nature---According to the rules, ACR for the year was to be completed within the prescribed period and not later than the month of June of next year---Adverse remarks should be communicated within prescribed period and in case of any unreasonable delay, the Authorities should explain the same with sufficient reasons, so that such remarks could be accepted as unbiased and effective---In the present case, the adverse remarks, in question had been communicated to the appellant after the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee with unexplained delay of one year---Reporting Officer, in the case had given a good report in respect of performance of appellant and the adverse remarks had been made by the first and second countersigning officers---Reporting officer had opportunity to closely watch work and conduct of employee and was the best suited person to judge competence of person who was working under him for reporting period---Countersigning officer as per instructions was under obligation to give cogent/specific reasons for his disagreement with the views of reporting officer in order to justify his own assessment, which they had failed to do---Countersigning Authority in case of disagreement with the assessment of reporting officer was required to score out with red ink relevant column against which they had expressed their disagreement---Such mandatory provision had not been followed by Countersigning Officers---Alleged adverse remarks were unreasonable and contrary to law---Said remarks had been communicated to the appellant after unexplained delay which adversely reflected upon its authority---Adverse remarks stood expunged from ACRs of the appellant, in circumstances. Mazhar Illyas Nagi for Appellants. Advocate-General for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th December, 2009.

This Judgment shall dispose of Appeals Nos.4 of 2007 and 53 of 2007 as in both these matters common questions of facts and law are involved and are closely connected. 2. In these appeals under section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, the appellant has challenged the order dated 12-9-2006 whereby he was superseded and junior D.S.Ps. were promoted, as well as the legality of order 26-8-2006 whereby adverse remarks were communicated to him. 3. The relevant facts in small compass are that the appellant joined the Police Department as D.S.P. in March, 1989 and his name was at Serial No.7 of seniority list. The Board in its meeting held on 25-6-2006 considered the names/cases of 24 D.S.Ps. placed before it in order of seniority for promotion to the rank of Superintendent of Police (B-18). However, his case for promotion was deferred for the reasons i.e. his marks being less than minimum threshold and adverse remarks in his A.C.Rs. The appellant being aggrieved of his supersession and adverse remarks filed departmental representations and after stipulated period while finding no other way out, approached this Tribunal by filing the aforesaid appeals. 4. The respondents contested the appeals on legal and factual aspects by filing written comments. 5. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record thoroughly. 6. The record reveals that the adverse remarks in his A.C.Rs. for the period from 29-4-2004 to 31-12-2004 and 1-1-2005 to 18-3-2005 have been made by the countersigning officers which read, as under: --

"(i) Remarks of the countersigning officer.--- "The Reporting Officer has not commented on his integrity which was fair, similarly, he did not find any special aptitude in the officer, while the officer had the special aptitude of Inaction Cum Inertia, then, he did not recommend future training, although the officer needs basic refresher courses in preventive and detective policing."

(ii) Remarks of the second countersigning officer.--- As S.D.P.O., Turbat, he made no efforts at all to arrest the culprits of the murder of late S.-I./S.H.O. Manzoor Ahmed of Police Station Turbat. As a result; the main culprits viz. Jaffar Bheel, got emboldened and become a menace in Gawader District also in Pasni" and beyond. He demonstrated total absence of initiative and Inertia. He even tried to avoid compliance of orders. He could not even bother to fill Part-II of his report. He is not yet fit for promotion." 7. A careful and minute perusal of afore-said remarks would show that the same are neither lenient nor advisory in nature. According to the rules of A:C.R. for the year is to be completed within the prescribed period and not later than the month of June of next year. 8. It is settled principle of law that the adverse remarks should be communicated within prescribed period, and if there is any unreasonable delay, the authorities should explain it with sufficient reasons, so that such remarks may be accepted as unbiased and effective. In the instant case the remarks in question have been communicated to the appellant on 26-8-2006 after the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee with an unexplained delay of one year. 9. The record also indicates that the Reporting Officer has given a good report in respect of performance of appellant and the adverse remarks mentioned herein above have been made by the first and second countersigning officers. Admittedly the reporting officer has opportunities to closely watch work and conduct of employee and is the best suited person to judge competence of person who is working under him, for reporting period. The countersigning officer as per instructions is .under obligation to give cogent/specific reasons for his disagreement with the views of reporting officer in order to justify his own assessment, which they have failed to do. The countersigning authority in case of disagreement with the assessment of Reporting Officer is required to score out with red ink relevant column against which they have expressed their disagreement, such mandatory provision having not been followed by countersigning officers. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of considered view that the adverse remarks are unreasonable and contrary to law. These remarks have been communicated to the appellant after unexplained delay which adversely reflect upon its authenticity, as such, the remarks stand expunged from A.C.Rs. of appellant and Appeal No.53 of 2007 is hereby accepted. So far Appeal No.4 of 2007 is concerned, the appellant was suspended on account of his less threshold marks. As such, we cannot determine the fitness of appellant, however the respondents are directed to consider the promotion case of appellant in next coming meeting of departmental promotion committee. 11. With the observation made hereinabove the appeals stand disposed of with no order as to costs. H.B.T./16/BST Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.