' JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALT MALIK (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant was serVing as D.S.P./S.D.P.O., Jaranwala, District Faisalabad when through a letter dated 16-9-2004 issued by the office of the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore he was communicated the adverse remarks in his performance Evaluation Report recorded by his first countersigning officer for the period from 19-4- 1999 to 23-6-1999. In his remarks, the first countersigning officer had described his overall grading as unsatisfactory (poor) and had also remarked with regard to fitness for promotion as 'unlikely to progress further' and had described him as corrupt to the core. Aggrieved of the adverse remarks, the appellant filed a departmental representation before the Inspector General of Police, Punjab for expunction of adverse remarks. His representation was however, rejected by the I.-G. Of Police, Punjab vide his letter dated 24-8-2005 as time barred.
2. Arguments have been heard and record perused. Although the representation filed by the appellant before the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab was apparently barred by time, yet the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the instructions about wri,ting of A.C.Rs, issued by the then West Pakistan Government's letter No,S(R)-3542 S&GAD 4-8/65-SO-XIII, dated 12-2-1968. Para. No,4 of the aforesaid letter reads as below:-- "Minimum period for writing of reports:--The minimum period during which an officer is expected to form judicious opinion about the work of his subordinate for the purpose of writing a report on his work and conduct has been prescribed as three months. The report recorded in respect of period less than the minimum prescribed period should be ignored."
' The aforesaid instructions now form part of the Punjab ESTACODE (Book-V, Vol-I).
3. I have carefully considered the arguments and also have perused the record. The learned District Attorney admits that the report in question was for a period which was less than three months and hence the said adverse remarks should have been ignored by the Department as required by the aforesaid instructions.
4. In view of what has been stated above, it can be said that the Performance Evaluation Report for the period in question could not be legally recorded and hence the same cannot be considered to the disadvantage of the appellant and so the adverse remarks contained therein are liable' to be expunged. In this view of the matter, the appellate authority should have ignored the limitation while deciding the departmental appeal, because there can be no limitation for challenging an illegal and void order. The Evaluation Report in question having been recorded for a period which was less than three months is liable to be expunged and as such the impugned order dated 24-8- 2005 passed by respondent No,1 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 24-8-2005 is set aside and the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. In question for the period from 19-4-1999 to 23-6-1999 are expunged.