' A.
0. RAZIUR RAHMAM (MEMBER).-This appeal has been filed against the rejection of the prayer of the appellant for expunction of adverse remarks in his A. C. R.
2. The facts of the case are that on 27th April, 1982 the Ministry of. Water and Power conveyed to the appellant the adverse remarks made by the Countersigning Officer in the report for the period 19th April, 1981 to 17th October, 1981 and also furnished him with a complete copy of the said report.
Against this, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Ministry on 3rd May, 1982, which was rejected through a memo. Dated 23rd June, 1982. Against this action he preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on 21st July, 1982, which, after preliminary hearing, was admitted and finally heard on 8th December, 1983.
3. From the record and documents produced before us by the parties, it is seen that the appellant, who was formerly an employee of the Government of the Punjab entered service under the Federal Government as Section Officer with effect from 22nd October, 1980. In the A. C. R. For the period 19th April, 1981 to 17th October, 1981, the Reporting Officer rated him in part II of the report as "A I" against 13 items and "A" against 2 items and gave him "very good" for the overall grading in part III and also recommended him for accelerated promotion. The Countersigning Officer namely, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, considered the assessment made by the Reporting Officer as a client one and added the following remarks : "An average officer, whose application of mind and involvement in his job was below average."
He also changed the entire rating and final grading done by the Reporting Officer and gave him "A" against 1 item, "B" against 8 items and 'C' against 5 items in part II and graded him as average in part III. He also cancelled the recommendation for accelerated promotion and considered him "not yet fit for promotion but likely to become fit in course of time."
4. The main grounds on which the assessments made by the Countersigning Officer and his general observations about the ability and performance of the appellant have been challenged arc that, while he was working in some other section of the Ministry, the Countersigning Officer has occasion to see his work and to remark on a particular file that the note put up by the Section Officer was a good one and, secondly, that during the period to which the adverse remarks relate not a single complaint was made against his work or conduct by the Reporting Officer and that even the Countersigning Officer, who is Respondent No, 2 in this appeal, had not shown any displeasure. It was further contended by the appellant that the Reporting Officer had given him a "very good" report with a favourable "pen picture" and he was in better position to assess his worth and performance. Therefore, the assessment and general observations made by the Countersigning Officer, which were not consistent with his earlier favourable remarks given on the file, should be treated as unjustified and, therefore, expunged.
5. We are unable to agree with the arguments adduced by the appellant for a number of reasons.
In the first place, there is no merit in the contention that, because, on a particular note put up by the appellant, the Countersigning Officer had passed appreciative remarks, the adverse remarks given by the same Countersigning Officer subsequently should be treated as unjustified, because of the simple reason that, even though, on a particular occasion the note put up by the appellant may have been liked by the Countersigning Officer and appreciated by him in writing in order to give him encouragement, the subsequent performance of the officer may not have been up to the mark and, therefore, a solitiary appreciative remark cannot be held to nullify the subsequent assessm ent made by the same officer.
6. As regards the second point, namely, that no complaint was made about his work by the Reporting Officer, it is observed that, if a Reporting Officer does not find anything wrong with subordinates of his, it does not imply that the said subordinate has no fault or defect to be pointed out. The assessm ent of the Reporting Officer may be faulty and, to correct the mistake made by him, provision has been made for A. C. Rs on the work of subordinates to be countersigned by the next higher officer. In the instant case, the Countersigning Officer strongly disagreed with the assessm ent and remarks made by the Reporting Officer and characterized the same as lenient.
There being no ground for believing that the concerned officer was either prejudiced against the appellant or had any malice towards him, the assessments and remarks, as made by the Countersigning Officer, have to be treated as final.
7. The fact that the Countersigning Officer had not shown any displeasure at any time does not lead to the conclusion that he found the work of the appellant to be satisfactory. From the A. C. R.
Dossier of the appellant, it is observed that, in the very first report on the officer, for the` period 26th October, 1980 to 31st October, 1980, the Countersigning Officer, respondent No, 2, had observed that the appellant had not settled down to work but was wasting time to find ways and means to revert back to provincial services and be posted in or around Multan. Then, for the period 1st January, 1981 to 18th April, 1981, he had remarked "He needs considerable efforts to reach the level of an average Section Officer."
The impugned remarks of the Countersigning Officer are, therefore, clearly in line with the previous assessm ent made by the same Countersigning Officer and shows that the said Officer had closely observed the work and conduct of the appellant.
8. As regards the better competence of the Reporting Officer to comment on the work and performance of the appellant, we have already given our remarks, which need not be repeated.
But, it would be worthwhile to note that the Reporting Officer for the period 1st January, 1981 to 18th April, 1981 had also graded the officer as average and noted in the pen picture that he was an officer of average intelligence and capacity. Prior to that, it is seen from the personal file of the officer that the Government of the Punjab, the former employers of the appellant, had conveyed to the appellant, on 14th April, 1981 the adverse remarks on his work and conduct for the period 30th April, 1980 to 16th August, 1980, in which he was shown as being "Below Average" against the following items : ' Judgment and Sense of Proportion ; Initiative and Drive ; ' Power of expression (writing) ; ' Perseverance and devotion to duty ; Integrity (Intellectual) ; ' His final grading was also "below average" and he was considered unfit for promotion.
' It was also observed : "He earned notoriety for corrupt practices."
' The remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer, the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, were also conveyed to him. These were : "He had a stinking reputation of being corrupt. District Bar Association passed a resolution against him for being corrupt, rude and inefficient. He was transferred out of the Division on this com-plaint.
In the face of these facts on record, we find no merit in the claim that the remarks of the Countersigning Officer were not consistent with the facts E and should not be upheld in preference to those made by the Reporting Officer for the period in question.
9. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we find the appeal without any merit whatsoever and, therefore, upheld the impugned order as well as the adverse remarks.
10. The appeal is dismissed with cost amounting to Rs, 100.