1. ' MOBEEN AHMAD KHAN (MEMBER).--Appellant Mr. Nisar Ahmad Charan, Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Sind Co-operative Housing Authority, Karachi has filed this appeal, seeking expunction of the adverse remarks conveyed to him by the Registrar Co-operative Societies Sind under his letter No, RCS/PA/73/1986 dated 31-7-1986. BY this letter the remarks of the first counter- signing officer which were held as adverse by the Department for the period from 1-1-1985 to 13-8- 1985 (7 1/2 months) read as under: "Need to improve the quality of control and, vigil over subordinates?
2. ' The appellant who was not assisted by any advocate argued his case himself. Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi appeared on behalf of the Government.
3. ' The main argument advanced by the appellant was that the observations recorded by the First Countersigning Officer find no support from the evaluation made by the Reporting Officer, under whose direct control and supervision, the appellant had worked. He further pleaded that his earlier A C R's are satisfactory and no adverse remarks of the above nature or otherwise was ever communicated to him during his long service. He further pleaded that the observation/remarks of the First Countersigning Officer are vague in nature as no specific instances are quoted which resulted in the formulation of such an opinion.
4. ' It was further contended by the appellant that observation is of general nature and may be the result of some misgivings, since he was never counseling for the alleged deficing before as provided under para. 4 of the 'Instructions for filing of the A.C.R. Forms' which require the reporting officer to counsel the officer being reported about his weak points and advise him how to improve.
5. In the absence of any such counsel, the observations lose weightage and credibility. It was submitted by the appellant that the observations/remarks recorded for the broken period of the relevant calendar year, have been treated as adverse by the higher authorities in the Government and are likely to mar his future prospects of promotion etc. And hence strongly pleaded for their expunction.
6. ' The Government counsel on the contrary asserted that remarks do not warrant expunction since the same are remedial and advisory in nature. In support of his contention, the Government counsel has drawn our attention to the relevant para of the letter dated 20th April, 1988 of the Labour and Co-operative Department addressed to the appellant wherein he was informed as under:- "The comments of the Reporting Officer that the remarks were remedial and advisory in nature will however be given due weightage at the time of considering you for promotion."
7. ' The learned Government counsel conceded that these remarks, which the department admits to be regarded as advisory should not be treated as adverse. However, the last phrase vis. 'The remarks will be given due weightage at the time of considering you for promotion' may be interpreted to the disadvantage of the appellant. Further such an observation runs counter to the admission that the remarks are 'remedial and advisory'. If the remarks are advisory then they would certainly stand washed off if such an observation is not held outran the subsequent confidential reports.
8. We have given our anxious thoughts to the above assertions and observed that the evaluation of appellant by the reporting officer at the appropriate column No, 4 of 'Supervision and Guidance' in part IV of A.C.R. Form has been graded as 'Average'. Accordingly the advisory remark of first countersigning officer is to he read in context of the evaluation made by the reporting officer on this specific aspect of the appellant's performance. Admittedly the average remarks are not regarded as 'adverse'. Again the observations pertain to such quality of head and heart which constitute 'nature' and is not something which may change or deteriorate only for a shorter period.
9. A Accordingly no adverse impression should be imputed from these observations.
10. ' As an upshot of the above discussion, we concur with the arguments of the Government counsel that the remarks of the First Countersigning Officer are advisory in nature and should not he regarded as 'adverse' and further that they do not warrant expunction. With this observation the appeal is disposed of as such with no order to the costs.