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. 683/376 of 1985, decided on 6th January, 1986.
Civil service-----
‑‑‑ Adverse remarks in A.C.R.‑‑Expunction of‑‑Remarks for 1957, 1958 and 1959 conveyed in 1984‑‑Officer reported upon meanwhile receiving promotions to higher grade‑‑Tribunal, in circumstances, setting aside orders rejecting representation against impugned remarks and directing expunction thereof‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.
Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
‑‑Abdul Hameed Chaudhry, Deputy Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director, Extension, Production and Artificial Insemination, Punjab, Lahore, Director General, Extension Livestock and Dairy Development, Punjab, Lahore, and the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned letters dated 28‑4‑1984, 17‑7‑1984 and final order dated 1‑9‑1985/8‑9‑1985, be set aside and the adverse remarks be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the years 1957 and 1958 as under:‑
1957-‑‑But he is not upto the mark as Incharge of a Hospital as he shirks .hard duty."
1958-‑‑"Numerous reports against him from the local zamindars regarding his carelessness in attending to his duties, which on enquiry were found to be true."
These adverse remarks were conveyed to the appellant vide letter dated 28‑4‑1984. The appellant submited representation on 20‑5‑1984 for expunction of the aforesaid remarks, to the respondents. Similarly by another letter dated 17‑7‑1984, the appellant was communicated another adverse remarks from his ACR for the year 1959 as under:
"A little bit tactless."
He filed further representation dated 15‑8‑1984, before respondent No.3. Both of his representations were considered and rejected by Government by letter dated 1‑9‑1985, endorsed to the appellant on 8‑9‑1985 and reached him on 10‑9‑1985. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned adverse remarks had out‑lived their significance, because in the presence of these remarks the appellant had been selected and promoted to the various higher posts in Class 11 and Class I, and communication of such obsolete adverse remarks at this stage were only an exercise in futility, and nothing else. He has relied on the Policy of the Government contained in para. 37 of the booklet regarding writing of ACRs and communication of adverse remarks. He has further submitted that this Tribunal, on the basis of the Government Instructions, already accepted appeals and expunged adverse remarks in a number of cases and has cited such cases as under:‑
(1) Case No. 171/632 of 1984 decided on 12‑1‑1985 Maqsood Alam v. Govt of the Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Department etc.
(2) Case No. 715/1072 of 1984 decided on 14‑4‑1985 Ajmal Hussain v Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Department.
(3) Case No. 152/87 of 1985, decided on 28‑7‑1985 Malik Maqsood Ahmad v. Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted that appeal be dismissed as the Government has a right to convey the adverse remarks whenever it feels desirable.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments and reproduce para. 37 of the Booklet regarding writing of ACRs as under:‑
"37. If the report containing the adverse remarks is not communicated or if communicated there is no record of its having been communicated and acknowledged by the civil servant concerned, the adverse remarks contained therein should be ignored for purposes of promotion and premature retirement. But in the C.R. Dossier of the person responsible for failure or delay in communication of such a report adverse entry should be recorded, which would be in addition to the disciplinary action required to be taken under para. 34 and which has to take its course."
We have further examined our judgments given in the cases of Maqsood Alam v. Government of Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Deptt Ajmal Hussain v. Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Department and Malik Maqsood Ahmad v. Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, as mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment and find that we have expunged the adverse remarks of these officers solely on the ground contained in para 37 of the Booklet of writing of ACRs, as well as on the ground that such belated communications spreading over a period of 27, 26 and 25 years, cannot be allowed to stand as adverse, as lot of water has flown under the bridges by the said time and appellant has been promoted to higher rank despite the presence of these adverse entries in his ACRs.
8. In view of the above law laid down by us in our earlier judgments as well as relying on para. 37 of the Booklet for writing of ACRs, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders/letters and direct that all these remarks be expugned from the ACRs of 1957, 1958 and 1959, forthwith. 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