' SALIM GUL SHAIKH (MEMBER).--- This appeal has been filed to assail the impugned order, dated 9- 2-2002 conveyed to him vide letter, dated 18-2-2002 whereby his representation dated 26-11-2001 against the refusal to grant him move-over has been rejected by the competent authority.
2. The appellant, an Ex-Foreman at Inspectorate of Army Stores and Clothing, Ministry of Defence, Karachi, had applied for voluntary retirement from service which was approved and he proceeded on LPR w.e:f, 1-8-2000 to 31-7-2001. He was informed vide letter, dated 24-11-2001 that his case for the grant of move-over from BS-16 to BS-17 was not approved by the Move-over Committee on account of average ACRs earned by him. He submitted his representation dated 26-11-2001 to respondent No,1 (i.e, Director-General, Inspection, GHQ, Rawalpindi), who vide covering letter, dated 18-2-2002 forwarded to him the impugned order, dated 9-2-2002, wherein his request was not approved by the Move-over Committee on the ground that he had earned "average" A.C.Rs, during the years 1996-98. He was also informed that his A.C.R. For the year 1999 contained the remarks that he was "not likely to progress further". Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that "adverse" remarks when not communicated to the official do not come in the, way of either promotion or move-over. Reliance was placed on PLD 1995 SC 556. He has further contended that the superior Courts had held in several cases that average A.C.Rs, do not come in the year of move-over. Reliance was placed on rulings 1989 PLC (C.S.) 493; PLD 1992 SC 144; 1992 PLC (C.S.) 16 and 1998 PLC (C.S.) 947. It was also contended that the reporting officer had failed to observe the requisite formalities before making adverse entry in the A.C.R. And, as such, remarks contained therein had no value in the eyes of law 1998 TD 119. Lastly, it was contended that adverse remarks, if not conveyed in timely manner lose their sanctity in the eyes of law. Reliance was placed on rulings reported in 1995 SCMR 768 and 1992 SCMR 1427.
4. The learned Federal Counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions from the other side.
5. We have heard arguments and have also carefully perused the record submitted by both sides.
It is not denied that the appellant has been denied the move-over on account of having "average"
A.C.R. From 1996 to 1998 including an entry in Part VI(b) of 1999 A.C.R. Which states that he was "unlikely to pi-Ogress further". This remark undoubtedly is an adverse entry and in our opinion it ought to have been communicated to the appellant. We also find that column (b) in Part V of the
(ibid) A.C.R. Has been left blank. In this particular column, the reporting as well as the countersigning officer are required to state whether the officer being reported upon has been given any counselling to improve his deficiencies. Therefore, it is clearly apparent that the appellant was, not given any counselling to improve his performance. This omission, in our opinion, is in contravention of Instruction No,4 of the guidelines printed on the back cover of the A.C.R.
Forms. The instruction reads as follows:--- "(4) Reporting Officer is expected to counsel the officer being reported upon about his weak points and advise him how to improve. Adverse remarks should normally be recorded when the officer fails to improve despite counselling."
6. The purpose of printing guidelines on the A.C.R. Form itself reflects the importance that is attached to them by the Government. Since neither the adverse remarks have been communicated to the appellant nor he has been given counselling by the reporting and the countersigning officers to improve these deficiencies in his performance. We consider these as serious omissions for which the appellant cannot be made the suffer. In view of the foregoing facts, we are unable to sustain the decision of the respondent-department. We are strengthened in holding this view by placing reliance on the ruling 2006 TD (Service) 346.
7. We are also not convinced with the argument that the appeal was not maintainable on the ground that it had been wrongly addressed to respondent No,1 instead of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Defence. Interestingly, the respondents have not rejected the representation on these grounds because we do not see any such observation on the face of the rejection order, dated 9-2-2002.
Secondly, we hold that it is incumbent on the respondents to forward the representation to the appropriate authority in case, it had been inadvertently misaddressed and which had been filed within the prescribed time frame. Reliance is placed on the ruling 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1200 and 2003 SCMR 104.
8. We are, therefore, very clear in our mind that the appeal succeeds consequeitly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent department to give the appellant all his dues with effect from the date his move-over was due.
9. No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.