' TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN (MEMBER).--Aggrieved by the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. For the year 1984 appellant moved this Tribunal through the present appeal after rejection of her representation by respondent No, 2, alleging therein that she joined the Education Department of the N.-W.F.P. In the year 1961 and later on was transferred to Government Girls College, Margalla on deputation on 6-2-1984 where she worked devotedly. She has to her credit about 27 years of service in the Education Department. However, in her A.C.R. For the year 1984 respondent No, 1 assessed her as "average" being biased and prejudiced, therefore, she approached respondent No, 2 for the expunction of the said adverse remarks who, too without going into the representation of the appellant dismissed the same, so she filed an appeal bearing No, 432(R) of 1987 before the Federal Service Tribunal on 4-11-1987 under a wrong advice which was returned vide order dated 1-2-1988; hence the present appeal on the ground that the adverse remarks are false and against the principles of natural justice and rules. Her performance was quite upto the mark, she worked even during the summer vacation and obtained a certificate to that effect. The performance of her students was quite excellent and the result of the subjects taught by her was 87 to 96%. The delay in filing the appeal was beyond her approach and the same may be condoned.
' Respondents 1 to 3 filed the joint written statement which was adopted by respondent No, 4 and a perusal of it shows that the appeal was attacked on the ground of maintainability, limitation, jurisdiction and locus standi of the appellant. Besides this, it was asserted by them that the appellant was not a good teacher, even the students lodged a complaint against her regarding her lack of interest in teaching them. She did not give due attention to her duties in the College. The A.C.R. Was recorded in good faith and objectively. She was many a time asked to improve herself.
Her representation was considered by the authority and the same being without any foundation was rejected. She approached the Federal Service Tribunal with considerable delay and then this Tribunal. The appeal is badly barred by time. The assessment, made by respondent No, 1 was quite proper, factual and unbiased. There was no mala fides of respondent No, 1, in giving the adverse remarks to the appellant. She was a care-free lady and did not give due attention to the college affairs. She always used to talk of her glorious past and the domestic problems instead of taking interest in her duties.
' Arguments heard and the record perused.
' Appellant argued that she did not receive the result of her representation on the date given by the respondents and when she came to know of the rejection of her representation, she filed the appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under a wrong advice of her counsel. Since she was serving in the Federal Educational Institution, she knocked at the doors of the Federal Service Tribunal. Although she was on the strength of the Education Department of the N.-W.F.P., the delay caused was beyond her approach. It was unintentional and the same may be condoned. On merits she reiterated that no advice or counseling was made to her by respondent No,
1. All of a sudden she was labeled as average and other adverse remarks recorded in her A.C.R., were the result of mala fides of respondent No,
1. She has shown fair results and she even worked during the summer vacation in the interest of the college.
' On the other hand learned counsel representing the respondents argued that the appeal is badly barred by time, that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have got no ill will or grudge against the appellant.
What respondent No, 1 felt about the appellant she brought it on the paper merely in the welfare of the appellant and of the Institution.
The arguments advanced by both the sides would show that the appellant's application for condemnation of delay contains sufficient grounds because firstly she approached the Federal Service Tribunal under the impression that since she is serving in the Federal Government, the Federal Service Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to give her the relief or when her petition was returned, she hurriedly approached this Tribunal. So far as the receipt of the information regarding the rejection of her representation by respondent No, 2 is concerned it is proved by her, beyond any shadow of doubt through the statement of Head Clerk, Government Girls Degree College, Haripur that no copy was sent to the appellant or the Principal by respondent No,
2. In this respect the statement of C.W. 2 is also worth perusal who admitted that the letter regarding the rejection of the representation of the appellant was sent through ordinary mail and not through registered letter.
No presumption of truth is attached to such a letter. An act of the authority which affects the career of a civil servant must be brought to the notice of that civil servant in a proper manner. We cannot place reliance on the averment of the respondents that the appellant received the result of the representation in the month of July, 1987 and failed to approach the Federal Service Tribunal within the statutory period. So far as the other pleas of the parties are concerned, appellant did prove that she was not advised/warned by respondent No, 1 during the year 1984 to mend her ways.
According to the rules, the Reporting Officer is bound to advise/warn his/her subordinates regarding the lapses and if the civil servant fails to improve, the Reporting Officer is required to assess him/her accordingly. We have searched for the record but failed to find out any written warning/advice to the appellant. It is a prerequisite of an adverse remarks. The question of jurisdiction has already been dealt with by the worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No, 301 of 1985, viz. Province of Punjab v. M. Ikramul Haq reported in 1986 SCMR 1986. Appellant was a permanent incumbent of Education Department of the Government of N.-W.F.P. And she was then serving there as a deputationist. This Tribunal, therefore, had got the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. On the basis of the above, we have got no other alternative but to accept the present appeal, set aside the adverse remarks in the impugned A.C.R. For the year 1984 of the appellant but leave the parties to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record room.