MALIK ABDUL AZIZ (MEMBER).--The work and conduct of Muhammad Sadiq, appellant, while serving as Assistant (Establishment) from 218-1983 to 31-12-1983 and as Transport Assistant from 1-1-1984 to 31-12-1984 in the office of the D.I.-G. (Traffic) Punjab Lahore, was reported upon adversely by the Reporting Officer (Mr. Ishtiaq Rasool, Office Superintendent), and the Countersigning Officer (Mr. Fazal Mahmood, D.I.-G. Traffic, Punjab) in the following manner:--
(a) 21-8-1983 to 31-12-1983.
By the Reporting Officer (Office Superintendent).
Observance of office procedure e.g.
(iii) Promptness and accuracy in disposing of work.Slow Observation on--
(ii) Knowledge of procedure and regulations.Poor
(ii) Punctuality. Poor
(iii) Skill in drafting. Poor General Remarks. A slow Assistant who is not aware of the Rules and Regulations. Needs guidance.
(b) 21-8-1983 to 31-12-1983.
By the Countersigning Officer (D.I.-G.) Traffic Punjab).
Not only the working of the Assistant is indifferent but it appears that he is not inclined to improve himself.
(c) 1-1-1984 to 31-12-1984.
By the Reporting Officer (Office Superintendent).
Observation on:
(ii) Knowledge of procedure and regulations.Below average.
General Remarks.
The working of Assistant is below average. He has been given an oppor-tunity to amend himself but he has not amended. He has been given warning to improve his working, but nothing useful result.
(d) 1-1-1984 to 31-12-1984.
By the Countersigning Officer (D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab).
General Remarks.
Working poor.
2. The appellant represented against the above-quoted adverse remarks, before the I.-G. Punjab, Inter alia, on the following grounds:-- The then Worthy Dy. Inspector-General of Police, Traffic, Punjab, Lahore, (Mr.Fazal Mahmood) became offended/annoyed due to some misunderstanding and he directed to record the above remarks in my A.C.R. to outgoing Office Superintendent (S.Ishtiaq Rasool). It is thus clear that these remarks were recorded on personal grudge and not on my working. The remarks were got recorded under pressure. These facts can be verified from Ex-Office Supdt. S.Ishtiaq Rasool Iazmi."
3. The appellant's representation was, however, rejected by the I.-G. Punjab vide his brief order dated 7-3-1988, the operative portion of which reads as follows:- "I have heard the representationist. I see no reason why the remarks should be expunged. The representation is, therefore, rejected."
4. And hence the instant appeal, under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the above-quoted adverse remarks, and the impugned order dated 7-3-1988 of the I.-G, Punjab, on the following grounds:-
(i) That in the appellant's A.C.Rs, for the years 1981, 1982, 1986 and 1987 he was graded as "A (Good) and A-1 (Very Good); for the period from 1-1-1983 to 17-8-1983 he was graded as "A" (Good).
(ii) That in the appellant's A.C.R. for the year 1985 recorded by the same D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab as "Reporting Officer"; he was graded as "B" (Average) with no adverse remarks whatsoever.
(iii) That the appellant was not conveyed any counselling or warning by his superiors during the periods under adverse reporting, because his work and conduct never warranted so.
(iv) That the Reporting Officer (Mr.Ishtiaq Rasool) had confirmed vide his letter dated 27-4-1987 addressed to the I.-G. Punjab, while offering comments on the representation of the appellant that he had given the appellant "Average" report, but the D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab had pressed/ directed him to give the appellant the abovequoted adverse remarks.
(v) That the impugned adverse remarks were the outcome of an incident involving preparation of statements of particulars of about 1,500 applicants for the post of Inspector Sargeants, for whose immediate recruitment the D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab was showing personal concern; the case could not be finalized within a day or two, as urged by the D.I.-G. Traffic, Punjab, due to the reasons that there was no provision, in the Rules for direct recruitment of Inspector Sargeants, and a proposal had been sent to the SGA&I. Department and the Law Department, for amendment of the Police Rules.
In the meanwhile, however, applications were invited by the D.I.-G. Police which had been received by 31-8-1983. The D.I.-G. Police (Traffic) was very keen to appoint some of the persons but the same could not be done until and unless amendments were made in the Service Rules for which appellant had been contacting the officials/officers concerned in the Home Department, Services General Admn. and Information Department and the Law Department but usually amendment of the Rules took time. At one stage the D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab, had himself gone to the Law Department alongwith the appellant and discussed the matter with the senior officers, but the amendments were approved by the end of November 1983 and the D.I.-G. Traffic, Punjab, misunderstood that the delay occurred due to the appellant's not, pursuing the case properly.
(vi)That the appellant's entire remaining 32 years' service record was satisfactory, unblemished and commendable; and that the D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab was the only countersigning officer who had given him the abovequoted adverse remarks out of sheer personal annoyance and malice.
(vii) That in the foregoing circumstances, the appellant, being a Law graduate, did not deserve the impugned adverse remarks.
6. The learned District Attorney has formally opposed the appeal, placing reliance upon the parawise comments furnished by the respondents, in context of the instant appeal; and advanced counter-arguments, though not so substantial and convincing as to rebut the abovementioned contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Having given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, and having carefully scrutinized the relevant record including the C.R. Dossier of the appellant we find that in his A.C.Rs for the years 1981, 1982; for the period from 1-1-1983 to 17-8-1983; and for the years 1986 and 1987 the appellant was graded as "Good" and "Very Good" by his superiors. But surprisingly, the appellant was graded as "Average" (with no adverse remarks) in all the columns of his A.C.R. for the year 1985, by the Reporting Officer; who was none else but the D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab who was the countersigning officer of the earlier adverse A.C.Rs, of the appellant for the period from 21-8-1983 to 31-12-1983 and for the year 1984. Obviously, the appellant's A.C.R. for the year 1985 was recorded by the D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab, just mechanically; without proper application of mind and not with an open and clear mind.
8. Apparently it sounds very queer and does not appeal to reason, that the official concerned, who was graded as "Good" and "Very Good" by different Reporting/Countersigning Officers in between 1-1-1981 to 17-8-1983 and 1-1-1986 to 31-12-1987, abruptly turned "Below Average" in between 20-8- 1983 to 31-12-1984, and became "Average" from A to Z in between 1-1-1985 to 31-12-1985 under a particular Countersigning/Reporting Officer i,e,, the D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab.
9. Appellant's adverse A.C.Rs, for the period from 21-8-1983 to 31-12-1983 and for the year 1984 do not bear any date of their initiation by the Reporting Officer or of their countersigning by the Countersigning Officer. Moreover, these adverse A.C.Rs, were communicated to the appellant as late as on 26-2-1987 and 23-9-1986 respectively, which was not only quite unusual but unfair and also in gross violation of the relevant instructions regulating initiation, countersigning of A.C.Rs, and communication of adverse remarks to the incumbents concerned.
10. There is nothing on record to indicate that any counselling or warning was ever conveyed to the appellant either by the Reporting Officer or by the Countersigning Officer during the periods under adverse reporting.
11. On scanning the remaining service record of the appellant has been found to be satisfactory and almost unblemished.
12. The incident urged upon by the learned counsel for the appellant as per para 5(v) above, which caused personal annoyance to the Countersigning Officer, against the appellant, gets material support and corroboration from the contents of the letter dated 27-4-1987 addressed by the Reporting Officer (Mr.Ishtiaq Rasool) of both the adverse A.C.Rs, under appeal, to the I.-G. Punjab while offering comments on the representation of the appellant against the impugned adverse remarks.
13.Furthermore, in that letter the Reporting Officer had, inter alia, stated as under:- "The D.I.-G. Traffic Punjab pressed/directed me to give him (Rana M.Sadiq (appellant) the above remarks at the time of close of the year, and I had to comply with the orders of the then D.I.-G.
Traffic Punjab, otherwise my remarks on first page are "Average", "Good" and "Fair".
And in the end the said Reporting Officer had recommended for expunction of the adverse remarks under appeal.
14. Thus contents of the aforementioned letter dated 27-4-1987 of the Reporting Officer lead one to the irresistible conclusion that the adverse remarks under appeal were the outcome of sheer personal annoyance and malice of the Countersigning Officer i,e, the D.I.-G. Traffic, Punjab, against the appellant.
15. We are, therefore, left with no alternative but to order expunction of all the adverse remarks impugned through the instant appeal. Consequently, the instant appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 7-3-1988 of the I.-G. Punjab is set aside and all the adverse remarks impugned through the instant appeal are hereby ordered to be expunged from the A.C.Rs, of the appellant for the period from 21-8-1983 to 31-12-1983 and for the year 1984. There will be no order as to costs.