' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Majid Hussian Rehmani, Director Roads, Lahore Development Authority, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department, Lahore and the Secretary Communication and Works Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed the adverse report pertaining to the period from 1-7-1979 to 31-10-1979, be expunged as being unjustified.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Mr.- Saleem Akhtar Bhalli, Superintending Engineer, recorded adverse opinion about the appellant by holding as under:- "1. Control over quality of work: Below average.
2. Did not impress me at all."
' These remarks were communicated to him on 7-5-1980, which was received by him on 19-5-1980.
The appellant made a representation against the adverse remarks through letter dated 17-6-1980 but the same was not disposed of till February, 1984, when he sent a reminder dated 16-2-1984. In response to the said reminder he has now been informed vide letter, dated 10-4-1984, that his representation had been considered and rejected vide Government letter No,6 R.A. (C & W) 2/9/80, dated 30-9-1980. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance including the Character Roll of the appellant regarding his past service.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as required by para. 43 of the Instruction read with Government Instruction as per letter Annexure E, the Secretary (C t W) being countersigning authority of the appellant's A A.C.R. Under appeal was himself not competent to dispose of his representation as the same was legally to be disposed of by the next higher authority. In this manner he has challenged the legality of the order of the Secretary, Communication and Works Punjab. It has been further submitted that even the statutory period of 3 months was not complete in the case of the appellant as for all intents and purposes he remained less than three months' Incharge of the said work. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the appellant's 25 years' record of service including two years' service at the supervisory job as (Director Roads) equivalent to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Department, and has submitted that the same was unblemished. It has been further pointed that during the above period neither the works in appellant's Division were inspected nor any inspection Notes were recorded by the Reporting Officer at any stage, nor any letter or order pointing out any such deficiency or defects was ever issued or communicated to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the above period under report, the inspection of the work in the appellant's Division was made by the higher and superior authorities i,e, Chief Engineer, Highway Department and the Hon'ble Adviser to M.L.A. For Communication and Works Department and said authorities found his work satisfactory in all respects. It has been further pointed out that in columns 5 and 6 of the A.C.R. The very Reporting Officer has considered the work of the appellant as good, therefore, in the presence of these remarks in the specified columns neither additional column could be typed by the Reporting Officer nor these adverse remarks could be added or recorded. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown surprise that a person who was remarked as fully responsible, dutiful and good in his quality and supervision of work in the earlier columns has been recorded in the self-created inconsistent column by the Reporting Officer as 'Below Average in quality control over quality of work.' A grievance has been made that the adverse remarks related to the works which have to be got executed on the spot by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Engineers concerned and the appellant had to simply supervise such works.
According to the learned counsel that the Reporting Officer did not give any adverse opinion on the A.C.Rs, of S.D.O. And Sub-Engineer of the Sub-Division during the period while countersigning their A.C.Rs, the appellant's adverse remarks would be absolutely contrary to his observation vis-a-vis those persons. However, while refraining from making strong observation in his representation and Memorandum of Appeal he has partly referred to the A.C.R. Of the reporting officer himself which according to him was found highly unsatisfactory. The case of the appellant is mainly based on the Inspection note of Hon'ble Member of the Adviser to M.L.A., who according to him, is superior than Secretary, Communication and Works and this would sweep away the remarks so made by the subordinate authority. Similarly with regard to the observation of the countersigning authority, it has been submitted that the second countersigning authority was deemed to have admitted the remarks against column No,12 of the A.C.R., as correct. This column according to the learned counsel relates to the appellant's personality where he has been regarded as a person of good personality. In this manner the remarks recorded by the second countersigning authority being inconsistent to the remarks given in the specified column No,12 were liable to be expunged.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Department and has submitted that the assessment made about the appellant was based on their personal observations therefore, the same may be maintained.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the assertion of the appellant regarding his 25 years' service is correct as the same is borne out from the Character Roll of the appellant. It is also a fact established on record that the Advisor to M.L.A.
For Communication and Works Department, found the work of the appellant satisfactory. We have also examined columns 5 and 6 of the A.C.R. Which pertain to the quality and supervision of work and find that the appellant has not been adversely commented upon but entry against the said column is good. Similarly same is the case with column No,12 which relates to his personality and find that in the said column, he has been considered as a person of good personality. In view of these established facts on record, we do not find any justification for the Reporting Officer or the second countersigning authority to give adverse opinion against their own opinion which was favourable to the appellant in the specified columns. It is a matter of fundamental principle of consistency which should always prevail in the matter of recording A.C.R. That the Reporting Officer or the countersigning authority should not be inconsistent in their opinion in the same breath. If a person has been considered a good personality in the specified column, there will be hardly any justification for the same officer to declare him an unimpressive person. Similarly a particular column declared personal work as good the same cannot be controverted while writing the pen- picture about the said officer. In the present case we further find that the Adviser to M.L.A. For C & W Department, while inspecting the work of the appellant found his work satisfactory therefore, to say that his work was unsatisfactory, would be negating the observation of senior officer, which according to us would not be justified.
8. However, with regard to the legal objection that the adverse remarks pertain to the period of less than 3 months, we are not impressed with the same as the overall period is to be counted in this respect despite the fact that during this period a person has remained on leave or not.
9. In view of excellent record of service of the appellant for the last 24 years and observation of the Adviser to M.L.A. For C & W Department and also keeping the established facts in view that the specific column ran counter to the pen-picture, we are of the considered opinion that the adverse remarks so given by the Reporting Officer as well as second countersigning authority are without justification. We therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the remarks of the Reporting Officer as well as of the second countersigning authority be expunged.
There will be no order as to costs.