Syed Bilal Ahmed, Member.--In this appeal filed on 7.6.2007 the appellant assailed impugned order dated 16.5.2007, whereby his representation against adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for 2004 was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case as given in the memo of appeal are that the respondents vide letter dated 17.10.2005 intimated adverse remarks in his ACR-2004. He preferred departmental appeal against the adverse remarks on the ground of being baseless and biased. His departmental appeal was rejected vide order dated 16.5.2007, whereafter, he preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the impugned order was not sustainable as Performance Evaluation Report (PER)' was written after lapse of nine months. The assessment was neither objective nor was any defect in his working brought to his notice so that he could take remedial action. It was stated that the appellant was never counselled, warned or censured on any occasion. While the general reputation of the appellant was assessed as Good, he was assessed to be below average in another column. It was also stated that the Countersigning Officer in his letter dated 16.6.2006 commented as follows:-- "The assessed average performance of the officer is considered fair. His general abilities should, however, not render him unfit for promotion. I would have no objection if specific adverse remarks are expunged." The appellant asserted that the impugned remarks have no legs to stand on.
3. In reply, the respondents stated that the departmental appeal was rejected keeping in view the past and present performance of the appellant.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. PER of the appellant for 2004 was initiated by Lt. Col. Naeem Akhter. On the representation against adverse remarks in PER 2004, the Report Writing Officer stated as follows:-- "Moreover, by considering the length of service and experience of officer, the adverse remarks may be considered as an advisory remarks."
6. On the representation against ACR 2004, the Countersigning Officer AVM Muhammad Rafi stated as follows:-- "The assessed average performance of the officer is considered fair. His general abilities should, however, not render him unfit for promotion. I would have no objection if specific adverse remarks are expunged."
7. The Report Writing Officer recommended that the adverse remarks may be considered as advisory remarks. Para 3.15 of the Guide to Performance Evaluation provides that "Advisory remarks are not to be treated as adverse for the purpose of promotion unless it has been established that the officer concerned has not paid any heed to the piece of advice given to him and has failed to show any improvement." The Countersigning Officer; however, recommended expunction of adverse remarks. Keeping in view the recommendation of the Report Writing as well as Countersigning Officers, their remains no justification for rejection of departmental appeal. The adverse remarks are expunged. The appeal is accepted.
8. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.