' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Maqsood Alam Divisional Forest Officer, Chakwal has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Province of Punjab through Secretary, Forestry Department and Secretary, Services and General Administration Departmer.t, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks for the period from 1- 1-1964 to 31-7-1964, 1-8-1964 to 31-12-1964 and 1-1-1966 to 13-6-1966, be expunged, by setting aside the impugned orders, dated 2-2-1984, communicated to the appellant on 5-2-1984.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who joined service in the Punjab Forest Department as Forest Ranger on 11-5-1954, was granted study leave by the Government from September, 1961 to November, 1963, during which period he did his B.Sc. Range Management, Utah University U.S.A.
Later on he was posted as Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Cholistan, while he was still Forest Ranger.
In 1964 he was appointed to the then West Pakistan Forest Service Class II on an ad hoc basis and after approval by the Public Service Commission, he was appointed to the West Pakistan Forest Service Class 11 on regular basis w,e,f, 11-1-1965. He was granted four advance increments in 1966 and also allowed to cross efficiency bar on 7-1-1966. However, West Pakistan Forest Service (W.P.F.S.) was abolished and the posts re-designated as Sub-Divisional Forest Cfficer. He continued as such and subsequently appointed as Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffargarh in Grade-18 on 12-4- 1977. This promotion was duly approved by the Provincial Selection Board, the post which he is still holding and is presently posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Chakwal. It was on 5-1-1984, the appellant received a letter No,S.O.Ft(E-1)7-6/83, dated 28-12-1983, from respondent No,1, wherein adverse remarks for the following periods were communicated to him:- 21-1-1964 to 31-7-1964.
1-8-1964 to 31-12-1964.
1-1-1966 to 13-06-1966.
' In para. 4 of the letter it was indicated that "representation if made should be in duplicate and may be made in a month's time". The appellant submitted representation to the Government of the Punjab, Forest and Wildlife Department, for expunction of aforesaid adverse remarks. He received a letter which disclosed that no representation for expunction of adverse remarks prior to 1-9-1968, will be entertaired. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case minutely with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned remarks related to the years 1964 and 6 months of 1966. These remarks, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, have been communicated to him after a period of 20/18 years. It has been argued that since then much water had flown under the bridges, the retention of remarks are highly unjustified. It has been further argued that the object of recording and communicating the adverse remarks was to enable a civil servant to improve his work and conduct and remove the defects which had been so pointed out. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that despite these two adverse entries on his entire service record which were also unccmmunicated to him, the appellant was granted four advance increments in 1966 on account of outstanding performance.
He was allowed to cross efficiency bar on 7-1-1966, and was subsequently appointed as Divisional Forest Officer on 12-4-1977, when he was still Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. He was promoted as Divisional Forest Officer on 10-1-1979, with the approval of the Provincial Selection Board, which is the highest authority of the Government for judging the competence and efficiency of the Civil servants for their promotion to Grade-18 to 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has expressed his \surprise that while it was communicated to the appellant that he should file a representation in duplicate within a period of one month despite this he was informed that no representation would lie against adverse remarks given to the appellant earlier than 1968. In the light of above learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Department was blowing hot and cold in the same breath and had taken a stand absolutely illogical as well as unjustified.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the department in extenso and has submitted that the adverse remarks were self-explanatory and were given by the Reporting Officer in accordance with the assessment of his work so assessed by them. However, he has informed this Tribunal that both the officers who gave adverse remarks to the appellant had since died, therefore, it would not be possible for him to produce any justification on their behalf.
7. With regard to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks had been conveyed to the appellant after a period of 20 and 18 years, he has not denied the same and has submitted that the same had been communicated to him under instructions of Government which came into force on 10-1-1984, in which it was laid down that adverse remarks howsoever old may be, should be communicated to the concerned civil servants as soon as the same come to the notice and officer should be given opportunity to represent for their expunction.
It has been further argued that no representation pertaining to the adverse remarks prior to 1968, would be entertained by the authorities which otherwise were competent to expunge the same.
7-A. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have also given our careful consideration to the letter, dated 10-1-1984 issued by the Section Officer (E-I), Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, which is based on the advice of the Services, General Admn. And Information Department forbidding to entertain representations of adverse remarks prior to 1968. We have taken a note of the said instructions which have been placed on record as Annexure-B, and were issued on 9-6-1973, vide circular letter No, SOR(S&GAID) 14-2/72. In this matter we called in Ch. Sakhawat Ali, Additional Secretary, Regulation Wing, Services, General Admn. And Information Department, Lahore, to know what was the latest position in this regard. He has provided us with the latest instructions on the subject contained in circular letter, dated 1-1-1981 issued under his signatures, which has been placed on record. In this letter it has been observed as under: "I am directed to refer to this Department Circular letter, No,SORIII(S&GAD) 14-2/72, dated 9th June, 1973 and to say that the instructions have been reviewed and it has been decided that if adverse remarks are not communicated, or if communicated there is no record of their having been communicated and acknowledged by the concerned officer, such adverse remarks should be ignored for purposes of promotion and premature retirement.
' However, I am to invite attention to para. 34 of the "Instructions about Confidential Reports" stressing timely communication of adverse remarks and providing that failure to do so should attract disciplinary action against persons responsible for the delay. In furtherance to this provision, it has been decided that in addition to suitable disciplinary action, which has to take its course, an adverse entry should be recorded in the C.R. Dossier of the person or persons responsible for failure or delay in communication of adverse remarks."
In view of the above letter we are of the considered opinion that as these adverse entries pertaining to the years 1964 and 1966, were not communicated to the appellant, the same could not be taken against him either for matter of promotion or for disciplinary action against him.
Furthermore we find that the Reporting Officers who gave these adverse entries to the appellant in the years 1964 and 1966 are dead and the respondents in this case have failed to justify the assessm ent of said entries against the appellant therefore, these entries are liable to be expunged.
We are further in accord with the learned counsel for the appellant that despite these two entries on his record, he earned four advance increments and further promotion and now is working as Divisional Forest Officer in N.P.S.-18, therefore, the existence of these entries on his Character Roll relating to the years 1964 and 1966, would be highly unjustified as well as against the instructions so laid down in this behalf from time to time by the Government.
8. In the light of the above analysis of the entire case and the service history of the appellant, we hereby accept his appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the entries for the years 1964 and 1966, be expunged forthwith as these are hardly material in matters of promotion or otherwise in view of the latest letter issued by the Government so quoted above in the earlier part of our judgment. There will be no order as to costs.