Brief facts of the case are that appellant while working as Forest Guard was served letter dated 25.03.2016 by Divisional Forest Officer Attock with the following adverse remarks of Reporting Officer and Countersigning Officer on the Performance Evaluation Report for the period from 23.1.2015 to 31.12.2015:- "REMARKS OF REPORTING. OFFICER PART-II Sr. No, 2&7 (a) Grade "C" (unsatisfactory)
PART-III
(a) Pen. PictureNot Punctual REMARKS OF COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER Part-IV
(iii) Reported to be corrupt.
Part-V
(a) A below average reported to be corrupt official."
2. Appellant filed Representation/department appeal before Respondent No 2 which was rejected on 19.07.2016. Later he filed second appeal before Chief Conservator of Forests which was turned down with remarks that appellant has already availed the remedy vide order dated 15.09.2016.
Hence, this present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that impugned order is against the law and facts, while passing the adverse remarks, the Countersigning Officer did not take utmost care and thus rendered the same without lawful authority. That appellant was never punished during his service career nor committed any misconduct during the period from 23.01.2015 to 31.12.2015. That adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer are incorrect and based on misconception, rather adverse remarks recorded by the said officer seem to have been passed inadvertently and no reasons were given in support of adverse remarks, therefore, the aforementioned adverse remarks may graciously be expunged from the service record of the appellant by accepting this appeal and impugned order passed by respondents be set aside.
4. Conversely, learned District Attorney vehemently opposed the arguments raised, by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned orders as well as impugned adverse remarks. It is contended that Countersigning Officer was fully competent to draw any opinion regarding evaluation/performance of the appellant. Learned District Attorney prayed that as appeal is without any substance, therefore, it be dismissed and impugned order as well as impugned adverse remarks be upheld.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. Careful perusal of record reveals that appellant was informed about recording of adverse remarks for the period from 23.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 vide letter dated 25.3.2016. Appellant aggrieved filed appeal before Appellate Authority/Conservator of Forest, Rawalpindi Circle, at that point of time Iftikhar Ahmad Qureshi was holding the charge of Conservator of Forests, later, due to his retirement, the charge was taken over by Athar Shah Khagga, DFO as Conservator of Forests, .Rawalpindi Circle, Rawalpindi who dismissed appeal of the appellant vide order dated 19.7.2016.
Athar Shah Khagga/DFO gave adverse remarks in the ACR of appellant as a Countersigning Authority, therefore, he was not competent to hear appeal/representation of the appellant as Appellate Authority.
7. Public functionaries are required to act within the parameters of authority conferred upon them under the law and they could not claim any inherent power or jurisdiction and every executive authority had to justify its action with reference to some contemporary law. Public and executive functionaries are required to act reasonably, judiciously, equitably, in all fairness and within the ambit under which powers are to be exercised.
"No person could be judge in his own case" whereas in the case of the appellant, Athar Shah Khagga presently holding the charge of Conservator of Forest was required to forward the appeal to the next higher authority i,e, Chief Conservator of Forest, but himself adjudicated the matter.
8. The order under the circumstances passed was biased/ prejudiced, he could not examine/review his own remarks passed in the capacity of Countersigning Officer.
9. Appellant feeling agitated against the order dated 19.7.2016 filed appeal to the Chief Conservator of Forests which was routed through proper channel, Athar Shah Khagga once again vide order dated 15.9.2016 observed that in 42-A of the Government Letter NO.SR-3542/S&GAD/4-8/65-SO-XIII dated 12.02.1968 an officer/official had only one right of making a representation as absolutely finality attaches to the decision taken thereon thus appellant having availed the remedy was intimated accordingly.
10. The appeal was not forwarded to the Chief Conservator of Forests by Athar Shah Khagga, rules/propriety demanded that appeal should have been sent to the proper forum under the circumstances who was to decide it in accordance with law, Athar Shah Khagga was merely acting as a post office.
11. The impugned orders dated 19.7.2016 and 15.9.2016 both passed by the Conservator of Forest, Rawalpindi Circle (Athar Shah Khagga) are hereby set aside and case is remanded to the authority, in case Athar Shah Khagga is not presently holding the charge of Conservator of Forest, Rawalpindi Circle, the incumbent shall decide the appeal, else-wise the matter be referred to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Northern Zone, Rawalpindi who shall pass speaking/judicious order in accordance with law within 60 days.