ABID HUSSAIN QURESHI, J. Appellant. Muhammad Tariq,- D.S.P. Traffic, Multan being aggrieved from certain adverse remarks in his Proforma Evaluation Report pertaining to the period 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 as recorded by District Police Officer, Rajanpur being Reporting Officer has preferred the instant appeal for expungement of the said remarks. It would be convenient if the said remarks recorded in the PER are reproduced for ready reference:- "PART-II Performance Assessment Please comment on effectiveness of the officer in performance of main duties as detailed at Sr. No. 6 of Part-1 = Unsatisfactory PART-III
4. Knowledge of laws/rules/procedures/IT skills = Unsatisfactory PART-IV
(a) Pen Picture: "A week & Politicized officer ."
PART-V
(a) Overall Grading = Unsatisfactory
(b) Integrity = (iii) Reported to be corrupt PART-VI
(a) REMARKS OF THE COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER: Agreed with IO's remarks."
The appellant preferred departmental representation which did not find any favour , hence, the instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has unblemished service record stretching over 33 years but at the far end of his career the said remarks have been recorded without any tangible and solid evidence just to defame appellant and just to stigmatize his career .
3. Learned District Attorney has opposed the contentions
4. After considering the arguments and scanning of the record the respondents were directed to submit any previous PER having any adverse entry in the record of the appellant but no such record was ever produced meaning thereby that there is no other PER having adverse entries of the appellant during the past 33-34 years of his service and thus it can be safely held that prior to recording of this PER the appellant had an unblemished service record. Now the question arises as to what prompted the reporting officer to record these remarks against the appellant and what was the available material/evidence with him and was there any objective criteria to assess the overall performance of the appellant. The record shows that no such evidence has been brought on the record either by the reporting officer or by the department meaning thereby that neither any material was available with the reporting officer on the basis of which he formed his negative opinion about the work and conduct of the appellant not there was any objective criteria to assess the performance of the appellant.
5. It is settled rule of law that it is the moral and legal duty of the reporting officer to assess the performance of his subordinate while recording remarks in the PER objectively, fairly and unambiguously. Where the question of integrity is touched in the PER the reporting officer must have certain tangible material and evidence on the basis of which he formed his opinion that the officer reported upon having doubtful and suspicious integrity. It becomes more relevant and significant when the officer reporting upon have unblemished record stretching over three decades of Police Service. In this background, it would be a very pertinent question that if a civil servant is earning good annual reports consistently for more than thirty years then, how all of sudden he is rated corrupt and below average. Since, undeniably objective criteria required to record any such observation affecting the career of a civil servant which could stigmatize for the rest of his life has not been fulfilled, therefore, the reporting officer did not perform his duty while recording said PER as per law. In this background, while accepting this appeal the impugned remarks in the PER for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 are expunged. File be consigned after completion.