S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Abdul Matloob Khan, Extra-Assistant Commissioner M.I.C., Gujranwala, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, for expungment of remarks from the Annual Confidential Report for the period from 1-7-1982 to 31-12- 1982. He has impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and the Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan Division, Dera Ghazi Khan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the adverse remarks so recorded in his A . C . R . By the learned Commissioner, be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Extra-Assistant Commissioner/ Magistrate 1st Class Rojhan, during the period from, 1-7-1982 to 31-12-1982 was given A-report in all the columns pertaining to the A.C.R. This report was initiated by Soofi Ghulam Mustafa, Assistant Commissioner, at the relevant time, on 1-8-1983. The pen picture indicates as under:- "A competent judicial any executive officer."
The Deputy Commissioner Mr. Khalid Latif Chaudhry on 30-8-1983, observed him as 'an average officer. However, learned Commissioner in the margin of the A.C.R. Observed as under:- "I will grade him below average."
The appellant filed a representation to the next higher authority which was considered and rejected vice order, dated 8-10-1984. Hence appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. It has been argued that even the observation made by the learned Commissioner could only be termed as 'advice', therefore, the same should not be communicated th him. However, it was further argued that the same, if were to be communicated, would be duly unjustified and are liable to be expunged. Learned counsel for the appellant has based his argument on the ground that the modality of writing A.C.R. Is fully elaborated in the form supplied by the Government to the Reporting Officers. The said form which has been placed on record Annexure B, contains exhaustive aspects of Officer's career of life, co-operation, attitudes, proficiency and leaves nothing untold.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant the Reporting Officer who was the immediate superior of a person reported in favour of the appellant as he has placed the appellant in all the columns of the said A.C.R. In category 'A' which shows that the appellant was much above average.
He has referred to the pen picture signed by the said Assistant Commis--sioner Rohjan, who observed that the appellant was a competent judicial and executive officer. He hay, drawn our attention to Part IV of the said A.C.R in which the said Reporting Officer has considered him better than majority of officers as well as equals the majority of officers and considered him fit for promotion. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that "he equals the majority of officers" was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner, and similarly column "fit for promotion" was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. In the column meant for pen picture for the countersigning authority the said Deputy Commissioner considered him in Average Officer.
Similarly Mr. Abdul Majid, Sessions Judge, had considered him possessing average knowledge of law. In this manner, it has been argued that the learned Commissioner, had no justification to consider him below average while jotting down a line in pat Margin of the said A. C. R. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed hat the A.C.R. Be expunged.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the learned Commissioner, D.G.
Khan recorded those remarks on the basis of general reputation of the appellant which he had known during his visits of the area and the views of the Deputy Commissioner Rajanpur.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the A.C.R. Is very important documents because any adverse or favourable entries in the same in respect of a civil servant, weighs very heavily for a civil servant at the time of his promotion or otherwise. We are of the considered opinion that the columns mentioned in the A.C.R. Are so exhaustive that nothing is left to imagination and Reporting Officer or Countersigning Authority are advised to make entries of their observations against the said columns and then to formulate pen- picture on the basis of the same. In the present case, what we find is that his immediate Officer the A.C. Rohjan and next immediate officer the Deputy Commissioner, Rajanpur did not find the appellant as below average but on the other hand he was considered Category 'A' by the A.C. And Average Officer by the Deputy Commissioner. This being so we would positively expect certain sound reasoning and plausible justification from the learned Commissioner when he chose to make adverse entry against the appellant as to consider a person below average which would definitely be adverse assessm ent of his work. In the present case, we do not find any justification forthcoming from the side of the learned commissioner except that he had his personal knowledge about his reputation etc.
8. In the light of above, we proceed to accept the appeal set aside the impugned order and direct that the adverse entry so communicated to the appellant and mentioned in his A.C.R. For the period 1-7-1982 to 31-12-1982, be expunged, forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.