1. ' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant preferred the present appeal regarding his adverse remarks conveyed to him vide respondent No,1 letter No,64 dated 15-10-1988 recorded in his ACR for the year, 1986.
2. ' According to him he joined the department as a Forester in 1963 and was promoted as Deputy Ranger in 1978. To his had luck he was involved in an Anti-corruption case but the learned Special Judge Anti-corruption per his judgment dated 4-10-1988 exonerated the appellant from the charge. However this did not solve his problem as the respondent No,2 on the basis of the said case graded the appellant as a cunning officer who was involved in a case of Anticorruption for misappropriating the food commodities. The representation of the appellant was rejected vide above mentioned letter dated 15-10-1948 and feeling aggrieved he has approached this Tribunal on the ground that it was by dint of his hard work, efficiency and integrity, that he was promoted as Deputy Ranger in the year, 1978, that no notice or warning was served upon him regarding his performance during the period under report and that the remarks mentioned above were mala fide and biased and may be expunged from his ACR.
3. ' Respondents submitted the written statement wherein they denied the allegations leveled by the appellant and asserted that appellant deserved the said remarks as his integrity was doubtful and he was involved in a case of moral turpitude, that his exoneration by the Criminal Court does not mean that the appellant was innocent. The remarks were given after due thought and consideration and that he had defamed the entire department on account of his performance.
4. ' Record perused and arguments heard.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the very basis on which the appellant was awarded the adverse remarks in the ACR no more exists in view of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, therefore, the said remarks may be expunged from the ACR of the appellant. Besides this no warning or counselling was made in writing to the appellant and the same was the case regarding the oral warning. There is no term like cunning in the ACR rules purporting to mean bad aspect of an officer. The said remarks were given by the countersigning officer and not by the reporting officer and there must be some solid reasons/instances in support of them but the record is silent in this respect.
6. ' On the other hand learned Special Govt. Pleader argued that the Countersigning Officer had got no enmity or malice towards the appellant. It was his honest opinion and he brought it on the record for the improvement of the appellant.
7. We have gone through the record of the case with their assistance and have eome to the conclusion that an adverse entry given to a Government official must be supported by some convincing and material evidence. For that purpose it is incumbent upon the Reporting/Countersigning Officer to check/guard the official concerned during the period under report and warn /counsel him in accordance with the circumstances of the case during the said period. Record however does not show any counselling/warning to the appellant. Opinion was based on the anti-corruption case in which the appellant was acquitted. When the foundation goes awary the entire structure whith stands upon it shall also fall down. Besides this there is no term of cunning in the ACR rules which may depict a dark/negative side of the character of a Government servant. On the grounds referred to above, we have got no other alternative but to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order by directing the respondents to expunge the adverse remarks from the ACR of the officer concerned. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room.