MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).--The brief facts forming background of the present appeal are that by a letter, dated the 26th of November, 1983, the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks from his A.C.R. Pertaining to the period 1-1-1983 to 10-6-1983:-- "11. CAPACITY
(b) Is his scrutiny of accounts detailed or does he arrive at conclusion without sufficient data.He always managed to draw wrong con-- clusions.
13. Integrity:
(a) Is he honest? Thoroughly dishonest.
(14) Special comments, if any. Unscrupulous.
(16) Do you consider him fit for promotion for higher grade?No.
(17) Is he fit to cross the efficiency bar? No.
(20) Any other remarks.Not only that he is dishonest, he is a very bad person. He has no character and would go to any length to achieve his personal gains."
Not only that he is dishonest, he is a very bad person. He has no character and would go to any length to achieve his personal gains."
The appellant submitted a representation on 6-12-1983 for expunction of the above remarks but the same was rejected as conveyed to him, vide letter, dated the 9th of April, 1984. By virtue of the present appeal the appellant has prayed to this Tribunal for expunction of the said remarks.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-Department. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned adverse remarks against the appellant were baseless, without any evidence and were result of the personal dislike of respondent No. 3 for the appellant. He urged that from a bare perusal of the remarks, it is ostensible that the same were recorded with a biased and prejudiced mind. He submitted that the appellant during his entire career of his service, had opportunities to work under more than a dozen officers and all of them had given good reports so much so that in the report for the period subsequent to the impugned report also the appellant was assessed to be honest. It was, therefore, argued that the adverse remarks recorded by the respondent No. 3, were totally unjustified and were recorded due to the annoyance of the said respondent which he bore against the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent-Department contended that the adverse remarks given to the appellant were because of the overall objective assessment of his conduct and not because of any annoyance.
3. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions made by the parties and carefully examined the relevant record. Significantly, except the impugned report in all the reports available on the file, those written prior and subsequent the appellant was assessed to be honest. Indeed, the impugned adverse remarks do not find support either from the record or any incident which should satisfy us that the appellant was dishonest. The impugned adverse remarks cannot, therefore, be reasonably considered as an objective assessment, more particularly, because when, as said above, the appellant was assessed to be honest in all the prior and subsequent reports, one fails to understand what happened during this short period which changed so drastically the opinion of the Reporting Officer about the appellant's integrity. Thus, the respondents utterly failed to substantiate the impugned adverse remarks. The irresistible conclusion would, therefore, be that the impugned adverse remarks are not only unfounded and uncalled for but biased too.
4. In the result the appeal is accepted and it is directed that the aforesaid adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer in the A.C.R. Of the appellant for the period1-1-1983 to 10-6-1983 be expunged. It is further directed that all the adverse remarks expunged hereby should be scored through and a marginal note to this effect should be added in the relevant A.C.R./dossier of the appellant. A copy of this order be also placed on the A.C. R./dossier of the appellant.
No order as to costs. The security deposited by the appellant should be refunded to him.
A. E.