' Ashfaq Ahmed Qanungo, Tibba Sultanpur, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 2nd August, 1984 passed by the respondent No, 1 whereby he declined to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant for the year ending 31st December, 1980 by Respondent No,
2. He has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari and Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi, District Vehari, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned orders be set aside and the adverse remarks be ordered to be expunged from the A. C. R. Of the appellant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Field Qanungo, Tibba Sultan, Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi gave him adverse entry in the A. C. R. For the year ending 31st December, 1980 as under :- "I disagree with the report of the Halqa Officer. He is an average worker. He is not conscious about his duties. Enjoyed bad reputation. Recently transferred from Tibba Sultanpur on moral complaints.
Needs strict supervision and lives beyond his measures. Not fit for promotion."
' He filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari on 29th May, 1983 which was rejected by his order dated 2nd August, 1984. Hence this appeal.
' I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of the appellant as well as comments of the countersigning authority with their assistance.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant after a lapse of full 3 years of the assessment so made by- the respondent No, 2.
This according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was against law laid down in 1984 PLC (C S) 1344 by the Federal Service Tribunal. It has been further argued that the entire service record of the appellant was unblemished and the Reporting Officer who initiated A. C. R. For the year 1980, had given him good chit in respect of all the columns of the A. C. R. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the countersigning authority was under obligation to justify the remarks which he has failed to do so. It has been further pointed out that certain observations in the assessm ent of the Assistant Commissioner are factually incorrect particularly a mention of his transfer from Tibba Sultanpur ordered by the Deputy Commissioner on certain complaints. It has also been mentioned during the course of arguments that during the pendency of appeal before respondent No, 1, the Commissioner Multan called for rolls of `B' Class Naib-Tehsildars and to avail the chance the appellant moved an applications ion on 26th December, 1983 followed by another application dated 24th April, 1984 praying that the pending appeal be decided at an early date so that his further promotion could be secured on merits. While forwarding comments on the aforesaid applications, the then Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi remarked as under :- ' 26-12-1983 : "Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Girdawar liar working revenue official. There is no complaint him.
His case deserves all merits for expunction of adverse remarks and further consideration for sending his roll for the post of NaibTehsildar."
24-4-1984: "Forwarded in original with the recommendation that Ashfaq Ahmad Qureshi Girdawar Halqa Fatehpur (Mailsi) has proved his work by topping the list among Qanugos in collection of Ushar for Kharif 1983 in Sub-Division Mailsi. Besides this he is an able and devoted official. His case deserves all merits for expunction of adverse remarks for the period under reference."
' Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that while forwarding the appeal to respondent No, 1, the then A. C. Mailsi on 2nd June, 1983 remarked as under :- "I agree with the comments and recommendation of Tehsildar Mailsi. In view of such good performance conduct of Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Qanungo, the adverse remarks may kindly be expunged accordingly."
While concluding his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks given by the countersigning authority on the A. C. R. Of the appellant for the year under report are liable to be expunged on the grounds
(a) that the same were communicated to them after a lapse of full three years in sheer violation of mandatory instructions ;
(b) that all the officers under whom he worked earlier as well as later, considered him an efficient, honest and hardworking official, therefore a solitary assessment of countersigning authority without any justification should not be allowed to mar the career of the appellant.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments so submitted by the respondents and has submitted that although the record of the appellant was unblemished during the past as well as after the assessme nt of the year 1980, yet this would not affect the merits of the assessm ent of the Assistant Commissioner, who being supervisory officer of his area, was fully competent to disagree with the Reporting Officer.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that one of the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner has been proved factually incorrect i,e, that he was transferred under complaints. 1 have seen the transfer order placed on record which reveals that the appellant was transferred alongwith other colleagues only in routine and in no way it was observed that he had been transferred on complaints. I have also seen the entire Character Roll of the appellant and find that he has been considered all along in his service as efficient honest and hard working official. Similarly even after his transfer from Tibba Sultanpur he has been given a very clean chit by his Thesildar and the Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi, who strongly recommended that his adverse A. C. R. Be expunged. This Tribunal has held in its various judgments that substances when a person has no complaint in his career he can become a villain overnight, therefore judging of such like cases, it must be seen that officer giving adverse comments against his should be in a position to fully justify his assessment. In the present case I find this essential element lacking in the comments of the Assistant m Commissioner as he made a wrong statement which makes one suspicious about the correctness of the remaining observation.
Whatever he has submitted in his comments to justify his assessment as well as in disagreeing with the assessm ent of the immediate officer of the appellant is positively based on no proof but by a general observation. He has referred to an incidence of a breach of distributory and attributed slackness on the part of the appellant but surprisingly enough has mentioned no date on which this incident took place so as to verify, whether at the relevant time this matter was taken into consideration by the Reporting Officer or counter- signing authority of the period to which this incident related. While commenting about the observation that the appellant enjoyed bad reputation he has only given justification by submitting that he was transferred from Tibba Sultanpur on moral complaints. This observation is factually incorrect as referred in the earlier part of this judgment, as evidence on the record reveals that his transfer was in routine without any complaint and the appellant once again is working in same place Tibba Sultanpur. The very fact that this adverse entry has been conveyed to the appellant after a lapse of full 3 years, also goes against paras. 33 and 34 of the instructions for writing of Confidential Reports that the adverse report should be communicated to the official concerned without any delay and failure to do so would be a serious matter. The logic behind this imperative instruction is that the official should be allowed to make a representation in time and also to mend his ways in life. It is also incumbent, according to the instructions of writing of Confidential Reports that the report should be written without bias and favour and in most impartial manner and the author of such entry be in a position to justify the same when called upon to do so. Reliance is placed on 1983 PLC (C S) 196 and 1984 PLC (C S) 1344.
8. In the light of the above I am of the considered opinion that the adverse entries given by the countersigning authority against the appellant for the year 1980, are not based on actual facts as one of the reasons given by him has been fully disproved by the documentary evidence so placed on record, which have been so referred in the earlier part of this judgment. Moreover if the appellant was so bad as painted by the countersigning officer, his next Tehsildar and the Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi, under whom he was given a chance to work, would not have recommended so strongly, his case for expunction of the said adverse remarks.
Keeping in view all the important points relating to this case and analysis of the entire background of this assessm ent so impugned before this Tribunal, 1 proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks given by the countersigning authority for the year 1980, be expunged from the A. C. R. Of the appellant. However, there will be no order as to costs.