' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Mrs. Safia Imran Malik, Assistant Directress (Books), Directorate of Public Relations, Department of Information, Punjab, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein she has impleaded the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Services, General Administration & Information Department, (Information, Culture & Tourism Wing), Lahore and the Director Public Relations, Department of Information, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the following periods be expunged:--
(1) 1-1-1974 to 14-5-1974
(2) 1-1-1977 to 3-6-1977
(3) 17-5-1978 to 31-12-1978
(4) 1-1-1979 to 31-12-1979
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed confidential reports on her work for the following periods by D.O. No,SOE (INF)-3-7/69, dated 23-2-1983 by Mr. Nazir Ahmed Chaudhry, Deputy Secretary (IC&T), Government of Punjab, SGA&ID (IC&T Wing). Paras. 1 to 4 of this D.O. Letter are reproduced below:-- "In the confidential reports on your work for the following periods, have been favourably commented upon. However, certain failures on your part have, inter alia, been pointed out in those reports. Copies of the requisite reports are enclosed herewith:-- {{TABLE TEXT}} Sr.No, YEAR / PERIOD 1-1-1974 to 14-5-1974 1-1-1977 to 3-6-1977 4-6-1977 to 31-12-1977 1-1-1978 to 16-5-1978 17-5-1978 to 31-12-1978 1979 {{TABLE TEXT}}
(2) In conveying these remarks Government hope that you will endeavour hard to overcome this shortcoming and bring about an improvement.
(3) A copy of this communication is being placed on your Character Roll.
(Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member)
(4) Representation, if made, should be in duplicate and must reach this Department within 30 days of the receipt of this communication through proper channel."
' The appellant on receipt of this communication represented to respondent No,1 for expunction 'of these adverse remarks. Respondent No,1 expunged the adverse remarks for the period from 4-6- 1977 to 31-12-1977 and 1-1-1978 to 16-5-1978 and the representation of the appellant for the remaining periods has been rejected vide letter dated 12-6-1983 received by the appellant on 16-7- 1983 (Annexure 'C'). Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Rashid Malik and Mr.A.G.
Humayun, learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the following periods have not been expunged in spite of the facts that full justification was given by the appellant in her representation for expunction of these remarks:-- {{TABLE TEXT}} 1-1-1974 to 14-5-1974 1-1-1977 to 3-6-1977 17-5-1978 to 31-12-1978 1-1-1979 to 31-12-1979 {{TABLE TEXT}} ' It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the so-called adverse remarks of the above-mentioned confidential reports were communicated to the appellant after a lapse of 4 to 9 years, that too through a single letter, dated 23rd February, 1983 by Deputy Secretary (IC&T), Services, General Administration and Information Department which is violative of the Government instructions about confidential reports and it, therefore, constitutes male fide in law.
There are definite instructions about communication of adverse remarks that the communication of adverse remarks should be finished by the end of June each year. In this way the adverse remarks were required to be conveyed to the appellant at the latest by June 1975, June 1978, June 1979 and June 1980, respectively, for the above mentioned four confidential reports.
Communication of these adverse remarks that "too" by a single letter in the year 1983 shows that a futile exercise has been done by the Department otherwise according to the instructions on the subject which have force of the rules, these adverse remarks which where not communicated at appropriate time, were not required to be communicated to the appellant as these were no more applicable and were redundant. It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that writing of the impugned reports piecemeal, after the prescribed time limit, is violative of para. 2 of the booklet, issued by S & G A D titled as instructions about Confidential Reports." The subsequent events appear to have contributed towards formation of the adverse opinion and half-yearly reports have been written with mala fide intention to increase their number and intensity. No adverse remarks could be considered valid and final until and unless these are countersigned by the countersigning officer. The reports for the years 1-1-1974 to 14-5-1974, 1-1-1977 to 3-6-1977 and 1-1-1979 to 31-12-1979 have only been initiated by the Reporting Officers and have not been countersigned by the countersigning officers to approve the assessment made by Reporting Officers and to underline the remarks to be treated as adverse for communication. Thus, these three reports could not be considered adverse according to the rules and should not have been conveyed to the appellant. As far as the 9th report for the period 17-5-1978 to 31-12-1978 is concerned, the report was countersigned by the countersigning officer who had made the assessm ent as "reasonably good" but did not underline any remarks with ink for communicating to the appellant. Thus, communication of this report also is uncalled for, as this report is not adverse one. Concluding his arguments it has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the first three reports have been initiated by Mrs. Shehnaz Arshad, Deputy Directoress of Public Relations, Punjab, Lahore who was enimical towards the appellant, her reports are biased and maliciously false. As far as the last report for the year 1979 is concerned, the appellant's counsel, has referred to para. 2 of comments submitted to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Information, Culture & Tourism Department, by Syed Bashir Hussain, Director Public Relations, Punjab (Retd.) on 7-12-1983 (supplied by the respondent No,1 to the Tribunal), the then Reporting Officer, which are reproduced below:-- "2. Mrs. Safia Imran has referred to her A.C.R. For the year 1979 in para. (vi) of her representation and her objection appears to be that somebody else and not the Director should have initiated her A.C.R. The objection is of technical nature and it will not have any substance if she happened to be working in a Branch which was directly supervised by the Director. And, as far as I can recollect she was then working in a Branch which was supervised directly by the Director."
' The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that above comments of the Reporting Officer show that he could not rebut the stand of the appellant that he was not required to initiate the report. Thus, the report for the year 1979, has not been initiated by the proper initiating officer.
6. On the force of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that all the impugned reports are against the rules, defective, uncalled for, have been illegally conveyed to the appellant and be quashed.
7. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents, reports of the Reporting Officers and has submitted that the adverse remarks conveyed to the appellant are based on the facts and have been fully justified by the respondents.
He has also denied and submitted that there is no truth in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the reports are as a result of mala fide intention or the reporting officers were enimical towards the appellant.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case very carefully. Perusal of the record reveals that this case was not properly scrutinized by Mr. Nazir Ahmed Chaudhry, Deputy Secretary (IC&T), Information Department, Punjab at the time of communicating the confidential reports/adverse remarks to the appellant vide his D.O. No,SOE (INF)-3-7/69, dated 23-2-1983. He did not bother to see whether these confidential reports were written/countersigned and actions completed as per instructions on the subject. There are clear cut instructions available issued by the SGA&ID, regarding writing of confidential reports and also the instructions have been printed on the reverse of the forms used for writing of these confidential reports. If a reference is made to instrutions Nos,2 and 4 regarding time limit for reporting of A.C.Rs, and communication of adverse remarks as printed on the reverse side of the forms used for the confidential reports for the writing of A.C.Rs, of the appellant so disputed by the appellant, the time limit for reporting/countersigning of the A.C.Rs, by various officers of a particular calendar year, is by end of January next. Similarly communication of adverse remarks are to be finished by end of June. In this particular case adverse remarks for the year 1974, 1977, 1978 and 1979 were conveyed on 23-2-1983, by a single letter by Mr.Nazir Ahmed Chaudhry, Deputy Secretary (IC&T), Information Department, Punjab as mentioned above after a lapse of nearly 3 to 8 years. The A.C.Rs, for the period 1-1-1974 to 14-5-1974, 1-1-1977 to 3-6-1977 and 1-1-1979, to 31-12-1979 have, also not been countersigned by the next countersigning officer. In the parawise comments the respondents have admitted that S. Hafiz-ur-Rehman, D.P.R. And Mr.Hamid .Ali Baig, D.P.R. Were the designated countersigning authorities for the period 1-1-1974 to 14-5-1974 and 1-1-1977 to 3-6-1977 respectively. Similarly for the report for the year 1979, the respondents have omitted to give the name of the countersignnig authority in the parawise comments but it is understood as the report was initiated by the. Director, Public and Relations, Government of the Punjab, himself then the report was to be countersigned by the next higher Authority i,e, the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, SGA & Information Department. The countersigning officers did not countersign these three reports, hence these reports were not complete, valid reports and were not capable of being communicated. As far as the 4th report for the period 17-5-1978 to 31-12- 1978 is concerned, the countersigning Officer has only assessed the report of the reporting officer as "reasonably good" and did not underline any remarks with ink for communication purposes.
Thus, this report was not adverse and was not required to be communicated to the appellant. The communicating officer failed to scrutinized the case properly vis-a-vis Government instructions on the subject. According to para. 3 of instructions about confidential reports circulated with the late West Pakistan Government, S&GAD letter No,S(R)-3542/4-8-65-SO-XIII, dated 12-2-1968, the defaulting authorities are required to be dealt with for proper disciplinary action if they fail to submit/dispose the confidential reports as per instructions on the subject. In this case the communicating officer instead of initiating action against the defaulting authorities for not completion of the confidential reports, conveyed the reports to the appellant after a lapse of 3 to 8 years. If a reference is made to Para.5 (B) of the parawise comments submitted by the respondents on the appeal of the appellant, the reply for such late communication of adverse remarks, the respondents have replied as follows:- "The adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant as a result of the request made by the appellant to respondent No,1 vide letter dated 3-2-1983, copy enclosed at Annexure 'E'."
' This makes it clear that the respondents did not consider these remarks as adverse, hence they did not communicate the same to the appellant at the relevant time.
9. The above facts of the case make it abundantly clear that whole of the issue regarding writing/completion/communication of the contested confidential reports/adverse remarks in this appeal, have been treated in a hotchpotch manner, causally and lightly by the respondents. No sanctity has been observed for dealing with these A.C.Rs, of the appellant. No care at all has been taken to follow the instructions issued by the S&GAD for writing/completion of the confidential reports. For writing/countersigning and dealing with the A.C.Rs, of a civil servant a due sanctity has to be observed as A.C.R. Is a crucial document. Para. 19 of the instructions on the subject (pages 277 to 326) of the Punjab Civil Establishment Code (Part I), compiled by Regulation Wing, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Government of the Punjab, itself describes the importance of the A A.C.R. As follows:-- "19. (Page 281) Instructions for Reporting Officers Annual Confidential Report is an assessment of the conduct and the quality of the work that a Government Servant has performed during the calendar year. On this assessm ent depend important decision such as promotion or suitability for different appointments. It is imperative that the report should be written impartially. It should be forthright and unambiguous. Particularly the work of the reporting officer should also be assessed by the higher authority on the quality of his reporting."
9. Keeping the above detailed analysis of the case in view, there was no justification for conveying of the adverse remarks to the appellant so contested by her before this Tribunal. Hence the impugned orders are set aside and the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the following periods are expunged:-- {{TABLE TEXT}} 1-1-1974 to 14-5-1974 1-1-1977 to 3-6-1977 17-5-1978 to 31-12-1978 1-1-1979 to 31-12-1979 {{TABLE TEXT}} ' There are no orders as to costs.