Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 945/99 of 1985, decided on 27th October, 1985.
---S.4--Adverse remarks in A.C.R.--Appeal for expunction-Report recorded in violation of Government instructions--Taken notice of by Service Tribunal--Columns .meant to be recorded by countersigning authority recorded by second countersigning authority--Reporting Officer assessing appellant as "average" and first countersigning authority assessing him as "below average" without recording reasons for dis agreement with Reporting Officer--Second countersigning authority recording his view in columns meant for first countersigning authority and agreeing with first countersigning authority but mentioning appellant "fit for promotion" remarks, in circumstances, held, glaringly contradictory and violative of instructions reflected on A. C. R Form itself --Tribunal accepting apneal and directing expunction of impugned remarks.
M. Rahim counsel for Appellant.
Malik Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.
Masood Akbar Khan, Extra-Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the adverse remarks recorded in his A. C. R. for the period from i-1-1982 t, 31-12-1982, by the Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan and has impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, and the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that for the year 1982 (1-1-1982 to 31-12-1982) the Assistant Commissioner who was Reporting officer of the appellant considered him an average officer. However, the Deputy Commissioner, his countersigning authority, found him below average officer who was always evasive to work especially as Executive Magistrate, and in column 4, Part IV of the A.C.R. the second counter-signing authority learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, found him below average but considered him fit for promotion in column 2, para. B, Part VI. The appellant submitted a representation to the competent authority which was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record as well as justification of the Commissioner carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the appellant was found an average officer by the Reporting Officer and his countersigning authority was under obligation according to the instructions given in the Part VII (a) of the A.C.R. Form, that if he disagree with the assessment of the Reporting Officer, he was under obligation to give reasons for the same. It has been further pointed out by him that the Commissioner has made a contrary stand in the case of the appellant, as he has found the appellant fit for promotion in para.(b) of Part VI in clause 2, but while countersigning the report of the Deputy Commissioner i. e. his countersigning authority he agreed with the assessment, the learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out another anomaly in this case that in Part IV of the form, column for overall grading had to be signed by the Deputy Commissioner, and similarly in para. b, fitness for promotion was also the prerogative of the Deputy Commissioner, but instead the Commissioner has signed the same. I have verified these facts from Mr. Shamasud Din in respect of 'Initials' who stated that these are by the Commissioner and not by the Deputy Commissioner.
6. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the comments of the respondents as well as justification so given by the Ch. Muhammad Sharif, ex-Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, and has prayed that the remarks may be maintained.
7. Be that as it may, the fact that the Commissioner has failed to abide by the instructions given in the pro forma. It is established on record that column 4 relating to overall grading and column 2 fitness for promotion, were to be signed by the learned Deputy Commissioner and not by the Commissioner, but the Commissioner has done the same which will be another irregularity and this Tribunal takes notice of the same, and has no hesitation to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that although it was vividly written in Part VII (a) in the remarks of countersigning Officer that he has to assign reasons of disagreement with the Reporting Officer. Learned Commissioner failed to take note of the same and unilaterally agreed with him without painting out this irregularity to the learned Deputy Commissioner. It is also interesting to mention here that while initialling para. B Part VI he has declared the appellant fit for promotion whereas in his own assessment he has fully supported the Deputy Commissioner's point of view. This is a glaring contradiction by itself.
8. In view of the above analysis of the case this Tribunal has got no other alternative but to strike down the same and it is in complete B violation of the form as well as other points so highlighted above. The appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and direct that the impugned adverse remarks be expunged from the A.C.R. of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs.
A.E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer