' Dr. A.Q.QAZI (MEMBER).--This order shall govern and dispose of Appeal No,26 of 1988 filed by Syed Asrar Hussain Taqvi Head Master, Education Department, who has -filed service appeal against the final appellate order of Director School Education Hyderabad Region whereby his appeal for expunction of the adverse remarks for the year 1982 has been rejected.
2. Briefly narrating the facts, the appellant joined education department as a teacher in 1952 and was promoted as a Head Master (BPS-17) in 1980 and that he was working as a Head Master, Government (P) High Court Kunri, under the District Education Officer (Male) Mirpurkhas (Respondent No,4) who recorded for the appellant following remarks in the Pen Picture of Annual Confidential Report for the year 1982. The Pen Picture is reproduced for brevity; "An average Head Master not punctual and careless"
3. The said rernaiks were communicated to the appellant by the Director School Education Hyderabad Region (Respondent No,3) which was acknowledged by the appellant on 22nd December, 1985. Appellant made a representation dated 14th January, 1986 well within the time and explained his position and asked for expunction. The representation was rejected and the appellant was intimated of the result vide a Memo of 12th March 1988. Appellant thereupon appealed to the Chief Secretary through proper channel which was also rejected on the ground that as per the standing instruction of the Service and General Admn. Department, Government of Sind only one representation could lie against the expunction of the adverse remarks and provision did not exist for the 2nd appeal/representation. This communication of the Chief Secretary was received by him on 21-4-1988 and it is with this background that he came to Sind Service Tribunal.
4. Since no serious legal objection have been raised at the bar in respect of the application being barred by law or not being maintainable we shall treat this aspect as closed and straightaway well upon the merits of the case. In order to assess this case purely on its merit we have called for the record of the appellant for the years 1980, 1981, 1982 (impugned report), 1983, 1984 and 1985. We find that in year 1980 and 1981 his pen picture bears the remarks: "He is a good Head Master".
5. We now come to the impugned Annual Confidential Report of the year 1982. In order to judge his performance we have carefully gone through part-II, part-III and part-IV of the said A.C.R. In part-II of the A.C.R. He has scored 'A' Grade. In part-III he has scored partly 'A' and partly 'B Grades. In part- IV he has scored 'A' as well as 'B' Grades. This read alongwith his previous performance in the years 1980 and 1981 has compelled us to believe that his pen picture could not be described by "An average Head Master not punctual and careless".
6. However in order to be doubly sure that we did not unlawfully infringe upon the right of freedom of expression of the recording officer when not so warranted, we directed the department to send us or produce before the Tribunal any such record of the year 1982 which could materially justify the writing of second part of the said remark recorded in the Pen Picture.
7. Our attention has been further drawn by the learned counsel for the ppellant to instruction No,4 of the Instruction for Filling of the A.C.R. Forms. It is indeed of help if we read this instruction, "Reporting Officer is expected to counsel the officer being reported about his weak point and advise him to improve. Adverse remarks should normally be recorded when the officer fails to improve despite counseling. The counsel for the appellant has all along insisted that this requirement of the instruction was not fulfilled before recording the remarks. We therefore advised the department to clarify if any counseling was done to the officer in question. The following is the reply. It is worthwhile to read the reply: "It is to inform you that on verification of the personal file of Mr.Asrar Hussain Taqvi, former Head Master Govt. (P) High School Kunri it has been observed that no letter by way of counselling in connection with A.C.R. For 1982 was issued to the officer concerned advising to remove the defect.
' This is for your information."
' Sd/- ' Kamaran M.Kazi ' District Education Officer (Boys)
' Tharparkar, ' Mirpurkhas."
From this we draw a clear inference that officer was not counselled and hence recording of such remark "not punctual and careless" without any material evidence was not legally and morally justified. In light of our discussion led above in our earlier paras, we are left with no doubt in our minds that the second part of the remark in the Pen Picture is uncalled for to the extent that the words "not punctual and careless" could not be justified and defended by the material evidence produced before us.
' Pen Picture of the Annual Confidential Report of 1982 of the appellant is accordingly correeted to the above extent and it shall now instead read "an average Head Master" only.
' This appeal is therefore partly allowed and the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant is modified to the said extent only. Ordered accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.