JUSTICE (R) SHOAIB SAEED, CHAIRMAN-Appellant Ahmad was conveyed adverse remarks vide order dated 24.3.2016 by respondent No, 1 pertaining to ACR for the period from 1.1.2012 to 25.4.2012, the remarks so conveyed were in Parts-II, III, IV, V & VI of Performance Evaluation Report by rating him below average as reproduced below:-- PART-II PERSONAL QUALITIES
1. Intelligence Below Average
2. Emotional Stability Below Average
3. Adaptability Below Average
4. Appearance and bearing Below Average
5. Overall Grading in Part-II Below Average PART-III PERSONAL QUALITIES
1. Knowledge Islam Below Average
2. Attitude towards Islamic IdeologyBelow Average
3. Punctuality Below Average
4. Acceptance of responsibilityBelow Average
5. Perseverance and devotion to Below Average dutyBelow Average
6. Relation with Below Average a. Superiors Below Average b. Colleagues Below Average c. Subordinates Below Average
7. Behaviour with public Below Average
8. Overall Grading in Part-III Below Average PART-IV PROFICIENCY IN JOB 1.Knowledge of work Below Average 2.Supervision and Guidance Below Average 3.Work Below Average 4.Out Put Below Average 5.Quality Below Average
4. Overall Grading in Part-IV Below Average PART-V a. Pen-Picture He needs further experience b. Counseling Verbally was advised Improved. c. Usefulness for further retention in serviceUseful iii. Fitness for Promotion Not yet fit for promotion by the countersigning authority Aggrieved, appellant filed departmental appeal/ representation before the respondent No, 1 for expunction of adverse remarks which remained undecided.
2. Arguments heard record perused.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that the Reporting Officer recorded ACR for the period from 1.1.2012 to 25.4.2012 on 7.10.2013 which was countersigned by the countersigning officer/respondent No, 1 on 21.3.2016 and communicated accordingly after a delay of more than two years.
The time schedule prescribed for writing of ACR is as under:-- "The report shall relate to a calendar year. It shall be initiated in the first week of January by the initiating authority and forwarded to the higher authority in the same week. The higher authority shall give its remarks within one week. In case it is necessary to send the report to a third authority, it will be sent to that authority immediately. The final authority, shall also record its views within a week. Time schedule has been laid down so that the remarks based on the performance of Government servants during the calendar year to which they relate. Otherwise, consciously or sub-consciously subsequent events can contribute towards the formation of opinion in respect of past year". As per instructions ACR was to be initiated in the 1st week of January which in the instant, case was reporting officer and then was to be forwarded to the next higher authority which is the countersigning authority/respondent No, 1 within a week thereof. The authority did not convey adverse remarks as obligated in the afore-referred instructions and no reasons or any explanation was provided for the inordinate delay. The assessment made thus cannot be termed to be rational.
The reporting officer rated appellant in the reporting paras of ACR as below average while attributing such remarks. The reporting officer while giving comments in Part-V (Pen Picture) should have justified the same by giving such comments in the column but except "He need further experience" the reporting officer failed to justify the grading which he had given to the appellant reflecting that material in that regard was not available. That before giving such grading or writing of ACR, it was incumbent on the reporting officer to have counseled appellant with regard to his work performance and conduct. Though in Part-V in the Column of counseling it is written "verbally was advised improved" but from record and from the parawise comments it is apparent that no such written advice was passed on to the appellant.
4. Learned Counsel to establish performance and good conduct of the appellant placed on record PERs relating to appellant for the years prior and immediately after the period under challenge, examination of which revealed that in relevant column appellant was graded "rated as good".
In Part-IV(A) the reporting officer recorded appellant as "Honest" and in Part-V "He need further experience", the observation so incorporated does not reflect the sense "below average". Similarly in column (d) of Part-V no adverse remark was given but appellant's retention in service held "Useful". In Part-VI (ii) the reporting officer recorded "Fit for promotion in his turn" reflecting confidence of the officer in performance of work of the appellant.
In the light afore-referred the grading given by reporting officer "Personal Qualities" in Part-II, "Attitude" in Part-III and "Proficiency" in Part-IV cannot be sustained as they contradict what the reporting officer wrote in other columns of PER regarding appellant "To be fit", "Useful" 85 "Honest".
The remarks of the countersigning officer dated. 21.3.2016 made after more than two years and that too after his own retirement are based on memory and seems to be misconceived.
5. In view above, this appeal is allowed, impugned order dated 24.3.2016 is set aside and adverse remarks pertaining to period from 1.1.2012 to 25.4.2012 are expunged.