' CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).--After having passed the Central Superior Services competitive examination, the appellant was placed in the Police Group, a part of All Pakistan Unified Grades controlled by the Federal Government through the Establishment Division and in the course of his deputation to the Punjab Government, remained posted as Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi from 14-6-1978 to 22-7-1980, Commandant Punjab Reserve Police, Chuharkana in the first instance from 30-7-1980 to 31-10-1980 and then from 16-5-1981 to 26-10-1981, D.I.-G.
Headquarters Punjab from 27-10-1981 to 31-12-1981 and lastly as D.I.-G. Of Police Headquarters Punjab, Lahore from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1982.
2. The period of his deputation may conveniently be year-wise divided into three parts to facilitate appreciation of the matter before us. The first was from 1-1-1980 to 22-7-1980 as D.I.-G. Police, Rawalpindi and then from 30-7-1980' to 31-10-1980 as Commandant Reserve Police, Chuharkana.
The second was from 16-5-1981 to 26-10-1981 as Commandant, PRP, Chuharkana and then from 27- 10-1981 to 31-12-1981 as D.I.-G. Of Police Headquarters Punjab. The third is in respect of the year 1982 from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1982 during which he remained posted as D.I.-G of Police Headquarters Punjab, Lahore.
3. The final report for the period from 1-1-1980 to 31-10-1980 during which he remained posted as D.I.-G. Of Police, Rawalpindi and then as Commandant Punjab Reserve Police, Chuharkana was initiated by the then Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Mr. Muhammad Azam Qazi on 29-10-1980.
In overall grading he was reported as 'Good' with the following observations: "A strict disciplinarian, who discharged his duties to the best of his ability. Professionally sound and prompt in the disposal of correspondence. Well-spoken of by the public. Known to be an honest officer. Manners and style of dress simple. As Commandant, PRP, he is taking lot of interest.In the training and welfare of the Force and raising their morale."
4. The Countersigning Officer, that is to say the then Chief Secretary Punjab, agreed with the report of the initiating officer and observed that the appellant is a very good officer. The date of Chief Secretary's remarks as Countersigning Officer has not been given.
5. On 27-2-1984, about three and a half years after the initial report, the Governor of the Punjab made the following remarks as second Countersigning Officer: "I consider that the assessm ent made by the Reporting Officer/Ist Countersigning Officer is biased.
' This officer had to be removed because of lack of control and command failure during the Shia agitation in Rawalpindi/Islamabad."
6. The report in respect of the period from 16-5-1981 to 31-12-1981 during which he held charge as Commandant, PRP, Chuharkana and then as D.I.-G. Of Police Headquarters Punjab, was initiated on 3-5-1982 by the then Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Mr.Laeeq Ahmad Khan. Here in this report he was graded as 'Very Good' in overall grading with the following remarks as pen-picture: "He is an extremely hardworking and conscientious officer. He is strict disciplinarian. As Commandant PRP, he made his mark in streamlining the working of this force. As Staff Officer, he has the greatest load and is discharging it extremely satisfactorily. He possesses rich experience of field and has the betterment of police force as uppermost in his thoughts and actions. Wears normal and simple dress according to occasion."
7. On 29-5-1982, the then Chief Secretary, Mr.Muhammad Siddique Choudhry remarked as Countersigning Officer that he had nothing to add to what has already been reported by the Initiating Officer.
8. On 3/4 March, 1984, about one year and nine months after the initiation of the report, the Governor remarked that "In crises he is liable to crack up".
9. The last report in respect of the year 1982, when the appellant had been working as D.I.-G. Of Police Headquarters Punjab, Lahore, was initiated by the Inspector-General of Police on 19-4-1983.
He was rated as 'Good' in overall grading with the following remarks: "Mr.Ghulam Asghar Malik has been working as Principal Staff Officer to the Inspector-General of Police. He possesses excellent qualities of head and heart. He is always ready to accept responsibilities in most trying circumstances and puts in his best. He always kept the interests of the Police Force uppermost in his mind. He is endowed with amiable disposition. A very fine officer."
10. While assessing his performance, the Inspector-General made the following comments: "As D.I.-G./HQ Punjab, Mr.Malik performed his duties to my entire satisfaction. He is extremely hardworking and his output has been excellent. Besides the normal duties, he produced a very good paper on the Separation of Detective and Watch & Ward Staff which is now in the process of implementation. He made useful contribution in setting up police organizational set up for the Afghan Refugees Camps in Mianwali District. He is a strict disciplinarian, with an humane heart."
11. On 8-5-1983, the same Chief Secretary graded him as an 'Average' officer.
12. On 2-4-1984, about one year after the initiation of the report, the Governor gave the following remarks as second Countersigning Officer: "The officer had shown cold feet during the Shia trouble in Pindi andIslamabad in 1980. He did not even attend to his wounded men."
13. The adverse remarks on his work and conduct for the period from 1-1-1980 to 31-10-1980 were conveyed to him by the then Chief Secretary through D.O. No,SO(SX)/PF/147/PSP, dated 4-7-1984 (Annex. A). The adverse entries regarding the period from 16-5-1981 to 31-12-1981 were conveyed by the same officer through D.O.No,SO(SX)/PF/147/PSP, dated 28-44984 (Annex. B). Likewise, the adverse remarks in respect of the period from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1982 were conveyed by means of D.O.No,SO(SX)/PF(147)/PSP, dated 21-4-1984 (Annex. C).
14. On 14-6-1984 when the appellant had been in receipt of adverse remarks regarding the years 1981 and 1982, he addressed D.O.No,4/PA/DD/84, dated 14-6-1984 (Annex. E) to the Additional Secretary, S and GAD, Civil Secretariat, Lahore requesting that copies of the reports in respect of those years and other reports relevant to the incident may be provided to him to afford him a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. Then, after he had received adverse remarks in respect of the year, 1980, on 26-7-1984, he addressed a similar D.O. Letter to the same officer with the request that a copy of the entire report of 1980 may be provided to him to enable him to make out a case for representation. It appears from the record that he was provided with copies of the reports in respect of the years 1981 and 1982 by the Provincial Government through letter dated 17- 7-1984 (Annex G). However, copy of the requisite report in respect of the year 1980 was ultimately furnished by means of letter dated 21-1-1985 (Annex 0).
15. After having been in receipt of these reports, he made a representation/departmental appeal (Annex R) on 2-3-1985 to the competent authority through the Secretary, Establishment, Government of Pakistan and the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab. The record shows that the Director, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad was informed by the Provincial Government through letter written in June, 1985 that the appellant's representation had been considered by the competent authority and rejected. No information appears to have been received by him during the statutory period of 90 days.
16. It was in the background of these facts that the appellant sought expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports by the Governor regarding the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, in the present appeal filed on 25-6-1985 under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which gave rise to the question whether the adverse remarks were factually incorrect and in disregard of the instructions on the subject.
16-A. The first ground on which the validity of these remarks has been challenged is that the Governor was not competent to make any addition to the report as Second Countersigning Officer.
It was pleaded that the ACRs of Grade 19 officers of APUG on deputation were not required under the rules to be put up to the Governor and they are required to be promptly dispatched to the Establishment Division after counter-signature of the Chief Secretary as Countersigning Officer.
Reliance has been placed on Instruction No,9 of ACR Form S-121-G issued by the Establishment Division which is to the following effect: "In certain categories of cases, remarks of a Second Countersigning Officer may also be required to be recorded. The Establishment Division will identify such cases from time to time and also designate an officer as the Second Countersigning Officer for each category. The Second Countersigning Officer will record his remarks in Part VII(b)."
17. The defence on this point is that according to the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab through letter No,SOR/14-B-71, dated 20-8-1971, the Confidential Reports of the D.I.-G. Of Police are to be countersigned by the Governor as Second Countersigning Authority.
18. Under the circumstances of this case, however, we feel that the question regarding competency or otherwise of the Governor to record his remarks as Second Countersigning Officer does not require a detailed address. As already pointed out, it will be enough to mention that the Provincial Government changed its earlier policy regarding submission of ACRs of D.I.-G of Police and laid down that they shall henceforth be submitted to the Governor for countersignatures and this was in spite of the Federal Government's instructions contained in para 2.51 of the Book Titled "A Guide to Performance Evaluation which says that only the ACRs on officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above to the Federal Government written by the Chief Secretary are to be submitted for counter-signatures to the Governor of the Province. Even from the appellant's point of view, the matter regarding expunction of remarks should be decided on merits, which will require an application to the relevant instructions on the subject and the circumstances of the case.
19. As we see from Para 2.33 of the Guide the ACR should be initialed by the next higher officer and countersigned by an officer higher than the Reporting Officer, both being concerned with the work of the officer reported upon. It is clear that those entrusted with the job of reporting on an officer have to be persons who, in the performance of their functions, are so placed that they are bound to know the quality of his work. Others who have either no connection with it, or are remotely concerned, have been impliedly ousted from sitting in judgment on his performance. In the present case, the Governor, if at all, was only remotely concerned with the appellant's work and his knowledge could not be direct, as would justify the passage of adverse remarks without any material providing him with necessary justification.
20. The instructions in paras 2.30 and 2.32 are that the ACRs should be written at the close of each calendar year and as per time schedule in respect of officers of Grade 19, they should be sent to the Establishment Division by the 28th Feb. Each year. Through these instructions, the Estt. Division desired that a report should be sent to it in the Ist week of April every year, whether or not the ACRs for the preceding years have been completed and forwarded to the appropriate authority, with reasons for delay in respect of outstanding confidential reports.
21. The spirit behind these instructions hardly requires an emphasis. They enjoin upon the Reporting Officers, the desirability and propriety of initiating the reports soon after the conclusion of the relevant period, when the performance of an officer is fresh in their minds. Due emphasis has been laid down on early initiation and dispatch of confidential report to ensure that they are genuine and correct reflection of how the Reporting Officer feels about the work of the officer whose conduct is the subject of his report. We are in no doubt that timely initiation of the report not only ensures its factual correctness, but also rules out the possibility of any ulterior consideration in making assessm ent of the work of an officer, which may come with the passage of time, thereby tainting the opinion of the Reporting Officer. Undue delay in making assessment can possibly introduce the element of mala fides which makes the report a valueless document. In case, therefore, the period of an year or more is allowed to elapse in recording the confidential report, if no longer remains possible to say that such a report addresses itself to the performance of an officer during the period under report. Longer the period in between, lesser would be the effectiveness, quality, reliability and genuineness of the report. There is hardly any need to emphasize that such a report by no means provides a basis for determining the career prospects of an officer.
22. Then, paragraph 3 of instructions of ACR Form S.121-G is also relevant. It lays down that the ACR should be confined to the work done by the officer reported upon during the period covered in the report.
23. Certain other instructions are also relevant and material. The Countersigning Officers, as detailed in Form S.121-A(Rev) Part-D, have been asked to weigh the remarks of the Reporting Officer against their personal knowledge, if any, of the officer reported upon and the previous report in his Character Roll, before giving their own remarks. It is laid down in para 2.13(c) that in case the Reporting Officer classifies the officer in Part III as 'average', he should give detailed reasons for this assessm ent if the major number of entries in Part II are good. We further find from para 2.29(d) that in accordance with clear instructions from the President of Pakistan, the ACRs should be written in time and that serious notice will be taken in cases of default and defaulting officer will be liable to disciplinary action.
24. As a general rule, in no case should an officer be kept in total ignorance for any length of time that his superiors after sufficient experience of his work are dissatisfied with him (Para. 3.3(ii)(e).
25. It is also in the instructions that the effect of the communication of adverse entries should be carefully watched and the Reporting Officer should, without drawing up a report in the next year, state whether the officer reported upon has or has not taken steps to remedy defects to which his attention had been drawn in the previous year. (Para 3.3(viii)(h).
26. These instructions very clearly spell out four things: First, in no case delay in writing the confidential report can be tolerated. It has been said in very clear terms that the defaulting officer will be liable to disciplinary action; which is more than sufficient to under-score the importance of timely report and the possible ill-effects which delayed reports can bring about. Second, the reporting as also the Countersigning Officer should apply themselves carefully to the work of the concerned officer for making a proper and reasonable assessment. Due pains have been taken, in the instructions to eliminate the possibility of an arbitrary approach while sitting in judgment on the work of another officer. Third, the officer reported upon should be informed well in time of the opinion of his superior about his work, so that he is in a position to improve his work and conduct.
Fourth, the ACRs should be confined to the work performed by the concerned officer during the period under report.
27. As we see from the facts, the Governor added his adverse remarks on the appellants' confidential reports in respect of the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 within a short span of 35 days from 27-2-1984 to 2-4-1984 and that too after the lapse of one and a half years and one year of the initiation of the reports. It obviously goes without saying that this was in utter disregard of the instructions issued by the Federal Government on the subject of confidential reports. In the first place, because of the length of time allowed to intervene between the initiation of the report and the Governor's observations, the adverse remarks do not have any rapport with the appellant's work. Their connection having become so remote, they do not appear to have any address to his performance during the period under report. Secondly, because of the delay and other circumstances, the Governor's remarks are suggestive of only a casual treatment to the whole matter; which is by no means commensurate with the possible consequences to follow in case these remarks are allowed to stay on the Book. Thirdly, the remarks recorded in the ACRs for the years 1981 and 1982 are evidently not confined to the period under report. They are based on Shia Convention held from 4-7-1980 to 6-7-1980 at Islamabad. They could be relevant only to the report in respect of the year, 1980 but they have got nothing to do with the subsequent years. In the presence of this circumstance, to say the least, it seems to be rather difficult to repudiate the appellant's contention regarding bona fides of the remarks. Fourthly, and this would be the natural outcome of the first three considerations, the adverse remarks spell out an arbitrary exercise of Authority. They are far from being a judicious assessment of the appellant's work during the period under report.
28. As for facts, the adverse remarks are based on a single incident of Shia Convention held at Islamabad from 4-7-1980 to 6-7-1980. The details of remarks have already been given and it will be sufficient to say that the Governor was not satisfied with the appellant's performance during that incident. If the pleadings in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the appeal are meticulously read in juxtaposition with the averments made by respondent No,2 in corresponding paragraphs of the written statement, there remains nothing to be decided even on facts and it will have to be concluded that the remarks are by no means a true representation of what really happened during the incident.
29. We do not think it is necessary to detail the appellant's pleadings in paragraph 11 of the appeal.
However, in view of their importance for determination of factual position, we feel it just and appropriate to mention that the following important points were made out:
(a) All humanly possible arrangements were made "in connection with Shia Convention.
(b) The Police arrangements were made by S.P. Islamabad under close supervision of the appellant, D.C. Islamabad, SMLA, DMLA and Commissioner, Rawalpindi. The requirements spelled out by the higher authorities were attended to in spite of serious constraints of resources and time.
All orders and directions of the Deputy Commissioner, SMLA, DMLA, Home Secretary and Chief Secretary were fully complied with and implemented in letter and spirit.
(c) The focal point of Government policy was that harsh confrontation with the Shia Community and use of Police Force was to be avoided under all circumstances and that it had been so declared categorically by every Senior Officer including the DMLA, SMLA, the Commissioner, Home Secretary, Chief Secretary, the IGP and even the Governor himself. If this was the essence of the Government's policy, there was hardly any occasion left for Senior Police Officers including the appellant to show any "lack of control and command failure, or to have cold feet" as recorded in the adverse remarks.
(d) The appellant along with the Commissioner, D.C. And S.P., Islamabad showed tremendous restraint and patience in handling the whole situation. The Commissioner and the appellant did not "desert critical situation even for a second despite the risk of life to them.
(f) The appellant successfully faced furious attacks of religiously "possessed and fanatic" mob of twenty to twenty-five thousands with injuries to Police without any retaliation. There cannot be a better display of complete control and command of the Senior Police Officers over their men and the situation.
' The command of the Police Force, under the rules, rested with the District Magistrate of Islamabad.
(h) Irrespective of the circumstances of the case, only the appellant has been singled out for adverse remarks, as if none else including the DMLA, SMLA, Commissioner, D.C. And S.P. Islamabad had anything to do with the situation.
30. Against the aforementioned allegations of paragraph 11 of the appeal, the Provincial Government were content in saying that the "reports referred to in this para covered many other aspects also and are thus of confidential nature" and that "the officer has himself admitted at (vii) that the situation had blown up". The appellant did make a mention of certain reports on the incident to be able to make out a case against the adverse remarks, but, as already pointed out, many other allegations of substantial and important nature were also made in paragraph 11 of the appeal. We feel that the Provincial Government should have specifically pleaded against those allegations of fact and mere averments giving reasons for their failure to provide the appellant with reports on the incident, was by no means sufficient in defence, let alone promote their case. A closer application to the appellant's pleadings in this paragraph would show that if factually correct, they were sufficient to take away the basis of the adverse remarks. The essentially important nature of these allegations and the Provincial Government's failure to plead to them clearly leads us to the inference that the appellant's assessment by the Second Countersigning Authority was far from being a true reflection of his performance in that incident. We are justified in presuming that what he has said in paragraph 11 of the pleadings is substantially correct.
31. Further, in paragraph 11 of the appeal, it was averred that the appellant had not been singled out in any enquiry report as responsible for failure of the whole administration including the Local Martial Law and civil administration and that he was never called upon to explain his role or conduct regarding the incident. All what the Provincial Government has pleaded in defense is that they have no comments to offer and that the position has been explained in paragraphs 10 and 11 above which is based on confidential reports". It hardly requires an emphasis that the averments made in paragraph 12 of the written statement do not carry us anywhere, in so far as the Provincial Government's case is concerned.
32. Therefore, it remains an admitted fact that no enquiry seems to have been held regarding the incident in question. Nor was the appellant held responsible for mishandling the situation in any report resulting from any such enquiry. The adverse remarks, seen in the context of these considerations, amounted to an unheard condemnation of the appellant, which is evidently against the principles of natural justice. Even in disciplinary proceedings, certain limitations have been put against the powers of the competent authority to ensure substantial justice. It is difficult to believe that the mischief which has been avoided in disciplinary proceedings, can be allowed to happen in a different manner in recording the confidential reports of officers; which are undoubtedly of a very great importance in determining the suitability of an officer for promotion, posting and disciplinary action. This being so, the adverse entries should not in any case be capricious and unsound.
33. The record bears out that the appellant was rated as 'good' and 'very good' during the period in question by the Initiating Officer, with highly complementary remarks in respect of the reports of the years, 1980 and 1981, even the Chief Secretary either agreed or do not differ with the assessm ent of the Reporting Officer. He was rated as average by the Chief Secretary only regarding the assessm ent of his work in the year 1982. The adverse remarks of the Second Countersigning Authority appear to be rather out of place, if seen in the light of the complimentary remarks and assessm ent of the Reporting Officer and the First Countersigning Officer who were ordinarily supposed to be conversant with his performance.
34. For these reasons, we hold that the adverse remarks recorded by the Second Countersigning Officer were factually incorrect and in disregard of the binding instructions of the Government on the subject and that their existence in the confidential reports of the appellant would amount to negation of justice and fair play. It is, therefore, ordered that the adverse entries recorded by the Second Countersigning Authority in the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 shall stand expunged. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
35. Parties to be informed.