' NAZAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH (MEMBER).---Appellant, Mrs. Ghzazla Gulzar, has filed this appeal under section 4 read with section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against Respondent's order, dated 15-1-2000 whereby Appellant was communicated adverse remarks in her ACR for the year, 1998.
The adverse remarks conveyed to the Appellant reads as under:- "At times she comes late in her periods."
' Appellant filed her Departmental Appeal on 8-3-2002 which was rejected by the Respondent vide order, dated 9-13/7-2002 which was allegedly received by the Appellant on 15-7-2002.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Appellant joined WAPDA Degree College, Tarbela as a Lecturer in the year 1986 and throughout her fourteen (14) years of service she was never communicated any adverse remarks. Appellant's result of her subject was about 100 per cent.
3. The learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the Appellant had unblemished record of fourteen years' service with the Respondent and by dint of her merit and hardwork her students were able to secure 100% result in the subject she taught. She further stated that no warning or counselling had ever been received by the Appellant for coming late. She further pointed out that no details of her late coming had been communicated in the Appellant's adverse remarks of the ACR communicated to her against which she filed Departmental Appeal. The learned counsel further pointed out that on Appellant's representation Member (Water) WAPDA wrote the following words:- "Remarks may be converted into advisory remarks."
' Appellant's Departmental Appeal was, however, rejected by the Respondent. She further pointed out that the adverse remarks pertain to the year, 1998 which were communicated as late as 26-1- 2000 i,e, long after the due date and as such, these remarks cannot be considered of any relevance and in support of her contentions she relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling reported in 1999 SCMR 1587 upholding FST is judgment wherein on the basis of four and half months' delay in writing the ACR the adverse remarks were expunged. She further pointed out that though the member (Water) WAPDA wrote that this remark may be converted into advisory but her Departmental Appeal was rejected without conveying any reason of rejection in contravention of section 24-A of General Clauses Act and also in violation of Supreme Court's decision reported in 1991 SCMR 2330 which enshrines the principle that every order should be reasoned. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Appellant was never given any counselling or notice of late coming and cited Sindh Service Tribunal's ruling reported in 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1351. Appellant was earlier never asked in writing to explain late coming. She also denied that the Appellant had been late in taking her classes.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents stated Lhat the Appellant has no legal cause for filing the instant appeal as it was time-barred which was rejected on 30-8-2000. He pointed out that under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 appeal should have been filed within 30 days of the rejection order but the Appellant filed another undated appeal before the Chairman, WAPDA which was not competent under law. He further stated that the appeal was hit by laches and merits dismissal. He further pointed out that remarks of Principal who was the best Judge of her performance had to be given due weightage. He further stated that adverse remarks were not about her performance but about punctuality and, as such, showing 100% result was not relevant.
He further pointed out that the remarks of the Member (Water) were his recommendations and it was upto the Authority to consider or reject the same. He further stated that the Appellant had constantly been counselled which the Appellant had ignored.
5. We have heard the articulations from both sides and carefully seen the record and citations relied by the learned counsel for the Appellant.
6. The perusal of the record indicates that the Appellant had been serving the Respondent's Degree College at Tarbela Dam for last A fourteen years and had produced 100% result and that there was no complaint against her from any quarter. This contention was not controverted by the Respondent in any manner. On the contrary, even the reading of the remarks of the I.O. Which are reproduced hereunder clearly indicates that except for her performance in Urdu Advance in Inter she was able to secure 98% for Inter Part-I 100% for BA Part-I examination which is extraordinary for any teacher which reads:-- "She taught Urdu (Compulsory) to the girls of Inter Part-I producing 98% result in the Board's examination. She also taught Urdu (Advance) to the girls of Inter Part-I producing only 23% result in the Board's examination which is extremely poor performance as out of 13 girls only 3 could get through. She also taught Urdu (Literature) to the girls of BA Part-I producing 100% result in the university examination. The students are not satisfied with her teaching due to divided interest in her profession. She may be advised to improve her quality of result, particularly for Inter level."
' The I.O's observations are contradictory in nature and the Respondents were not able to substantiate their contention that the students were not happy with her. The Respondents also failed to state that whether she was ever counselled as para. 5 of General Instructions of the ACR writing except in their written averments which were not backed by an written advice to the Appellant to improve her performance or punctuality. Furthermore, the Appellant was only conveyed the remarks about her punctuality which is reproduced against as under:- "At times she comes late in her periods."
' This remark is vague and cannot be of any value as it does not mention any details of the Appellant's late coming. If any teacher is consistently late then she would not be able to produce such results which have not been challenged by the Respondents. Furthermore, according to the laid down procedure whenever adverse remarks are communicated, they are communicated along with copy of the adverse report. The impugned order, dated 15-1-2000 does not indicate any such reference that the report was also enclosed with the impugned letter to the Appellant which is a gross violation of the rules.
7. Appellant's contention that delay in communicating the adverse remarks is sound and sustainable.
8. As regards Respondent's contention that Appellant's appeal is hit by limitation. The facts indicate that the Appellant's undated appeal addressed to the Chairman, WAPDA on the above subject even if it was second appeal was rejected on merits and not on question of law or that the second appeal is not covered under the rules. In this regard Appellant's learned counsel relied case of M.
Akbar Khan v. I.G. Police, N.W.F.P., Peshawar reported in 2000 SCMR 36 wherein their Lordships ruled as under:-- "(5) It is settled law that if the departmental authority does not dismiss the departmental appeal on the ground of bar of limitation, the Tribunal of its own could not hold the appeal as incompetent in view of the said bar of limitation."
' Similar ruling was given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Anwar Muhammad v. General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore reported in 1995 PLC (C.S.) 803.
9. In view of the above facts, we find that adverse remarks are biased and suffer from infirmities which cannot be upheld in the light of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in this order and,' as such, the appeal is accepted and the adverse remarks are expunged.
10. No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.