1. ' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Israr Ahmad Khan was awarded adverse remarks in his A.C.R. For the period commencing from 6-8-1981 to 31-12-1981 by respondent No,
2. He made a representation to respondent No, 1 which was refused and the same was the fate of the review petition to the said authority, so the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds that the adverse remarks were factually incorrect, biased, prejudicial and mala fide. The said Deputy Commissioner had appreciated his services rendered by him in the successful arrangement of Jashane-Khyber, Peshawar. He had never been given the remarks either before or after the impugned ones. Besides this, they were communicated to him beyond the reasonable time.
2. ' On the other hand respondents controverted the plea by stating that his performance was below average, that he really deserved the said remarks and that the present appeal was barred by time.
3. ' It so happened that my learned predecessor Justice (Retd.) Qaisar Khan dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 30-3-1985 on the ground of limitation and the appellant being dissatisfied with the same, challenged it before the worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan and their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to remand the case to the Tribunal vide their judgment dated 30- 5-1988. The delay was condoned and the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
4. ' The assertion of the appellant that he was to perform numerous duties besides the judicial work was not denied by the respondents. It was also not denied that prior to the impugned remarks, he was ever awarded the adverse remarks. It is also on the record that at one occasion due to his efficient performance the Reporting Officer gave him an appreciation certificate. Had the performance of the officer been below average in general then there was no likelihood of the grant of such a certificate to him by the same officer. The adverse remarks given by respondent No, 2 are shown as under: {{TABLE TEXT}} Quality and output of work ... Below average Ability to plan, organise and supervise work. ... Below average Preservance and devotion to duty. ... Below average Sense of responsibility (General) ... Below average Disposal of cases. ... Below average Observance of security measures. ... Inclined to be negligent.
5. Touring. ... Inadequate unsystematic. {{TABLE TEXT}} or ' In the pen-picture it was further added that "his work as Magistrate left much to be desired. Even today there are Court problems, where speaking orders were issued but detailed orders are missing". All the above lapses and short comings Would certainly invite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings/warnings/reminders to the appellant but the record is silent about this fact. At least an officer must be aware as to where the fault lies in order to improve himself, before he gets the adverse remarks. This was not done in the present case. Moreover, the second para of the pen- picture is somewhat not understandable and is confused. On the one hand it was opined that the speaking orders were written and on the other hand it was maintained that the detailed orders are missing. It is quite possible that a judgment or an order may be speaking but it may be very short.
6. But a lengthy order can always not be a speaking order. Over and above all not the present appeal but the communication of the adverse remarks to the appellant was badly barred by time. Under the existing rules, reasonable time has been prescribed for the communication of the adverse remarks to a Government servant. For this purpose period has been taken to be the months of March or April are considered as the target period but in the instant case the adverse remarks, per admission of the respondents were conveyed to him on 29-10-1983. These were, therefore, of no effect.
7. ' Viewed from every angle, the appeal succeeds and it is hereby decreed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room.