Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Humayun Iqbal Shami filed the present appeal when he was a Deputy Director in the service of respondents. He was aggrieved by the adverse remarks recorded in his PER for the period from July, 2009, to December, 2009. The order by which the adverse remarks were conveyed to him was issued on 16.07.2010. It was received by him on 19.07.2010. His departmental appeal dated 13.08.2010 was not responded.
2. It was stated in the impugned remarks that the appellant misguided his seniors, that his performance was poor and unsatisfactory, that he had a doubtful integrity, that he was a confused person, that he was a professional litigant, that he had a psychological problem for which had to be referred to a psychiatrist, that he used political influence for getting his ACRs recorded and that he was imbalanced. He was rated to be below average by the reporting officer and the countersigning officer. In the column relating to fitness for promotion it was stated by the reporting officer and the countersigning officer that he was unlikely to progress further.
3. The appeal has been resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had been given the impugned remarks since he deserved the same.
4. We have heard the appellant in person, learned counsel for the respondents and the departmental representative of respondents. The record has also been perused by us.
5. It is conceded by the respondents that appellant has already been promoted as Director. If the impugned remarks were correct then he should not have been promoted. The very fact that he has been promoted proves that the adverse remarks were not warranted.
6. Surprisingly the reporting officer Mr. Inam-ur-Rahim, D.G acted as Countersigning officer. It was explained that countersigning officer was not available, therefore, the reporting officer had to act as countersigning officer also. We find no logic in this contention. The countersigning officer has to be different and higher in status than the reporting officer. If one person performs the duties of the reporting officer and also of countersigning officer, it shall tantamount to failure of the universally accepted principle of natural justice that justice should not only be done but must appear to have been done. By confirming his own views as countersigning officer Mr. Inam-ur-Rahim had demonstrated that he did not believe in rule of law or in the principle of justice and fair play or he did not know about this principle. He should have sent PER in question to the Additional Secretary or the Secretary when the report was that countersigning officer was not available. We are constrained to hold that Mr. Inam-ur-Rahim had not acted within the norms of justice. Hence we are not prepared to place reliance on his report, as reporting officer as well as countersigning officer.
7. But as stated above, the appellant has already been promoted as Director notwithstanding the impugned remarks which clearly prove that these remarks are worthless.
8. In the above circumstances, we accept the appeal and expunge the impugned remarks.
9. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.