' ISHTIAQ AHMED, MEMBER -- This consolidated judgment is being delivered to decide both the captioned appeals, because common questions of facts and law are involved therein.
2. The appellants have submitted that both were working as Assistant Sub-Inspectors in FIA under the command and control of the respondent No,
2. M. Younus and Syed M. Naqvi were conveyed adverse remarks, recorded by the respondent No, 2 for the period from 6.4.2009 to 25.7.2009 and 6.2.2009 to 25.8.2009 'respectively against which appellants submitted representations to the respondent No, 1 for expunction of adverse remarks in their ACR dossiers, but the same were not responded do.
3. It is averred by both the appellants that they had been performing their duties assiduously under subordination of the respondents. The reporting officers painted them with enviable remarks, but the countersigning officer had dis-agreed without any rhyme or reason. That the period of the impugned remarks was confined to four months only which was not huge enough to postulate such an assessm ent by the countersigning officer.
4. The respondents resisted the appeals and filed written objections, inter alia, contending that the adverse remarks were recorded genuinely and were duly conveyed to the appellants. They filed representations, but the same were under process. Appeals were prayed to be.Dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the departmental representative on behalf of the respondents who remained glued to the averments of the pleading and we also perused the record.
6. It is evident from the record that the reporting officer inked remarks as "very good" for both the appellants. On the other hand, countersigning officer dissuaded. The remarks divulge that the allegation of corruption was not levelled against both the appellants and the countersigning officer was wary of the non-accomplishment of some assignment by both the appellants. However, details are not available in the impugned remarks. Significant. To note that the appellants worked under the subordination of countersigning officer for three months or so and the period Was not so large to enable him to make such an assessment while the countersigning officer was not in direct touch with both of them. Very strong and cogent reasoning is required to brush aside the remarks of the reporting officer. Same is Jacking in the remarks, recorded by the countersigning officers. We are unable to uphold the observations of the countersigning officer, which were not substantiated by him to dub the appellants as such, in the circumstances.
7. It has been unfolded today by both the sides that the appellants have been promoted in the year 2013. There can be no gainsaying the fact that under the rules, for promotion of a civil servant, after adverse remarks in the ACR dossiers three consecutive ACRs, with harmless remarks at least, are needed. It is undeniable in the circumstances that the effect of the remarks of the countersigning officer and diluted and that is why both the appellants were promoted way back in the year 2013.
Given this context, we are constrained to hold that the remarks recorded by the countersigning officer were uncalled for and even otherwise with the promotion of the appellants, there remarks have become toothless.
8. Significant to note that no counselling was administered to the appellants before drubbing them.
That being the case, both these appeals are accepted. Remarks of the countersigning officers impugned in the appeals are set aside and substituted with the ones recorded by the reporting officer.
9. No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.