1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant's case as disclosed in his memo. of appeal is as follows. He was working as Deputy Director (Admn.), in the Directorate of Social Welfare, Sindh, Karachi when he applied for moveover from BS-18 to BS-19 on 27-1-1988. His request was turned down by the Secretary to Government of Sindh, Social Welfare Department (hereinafter referred to as the said Department) on the ground that he had earned adverse remarks for the years 1984, 1986 and 1987 vide the said Department's' memo. dated 21st June, 1988. The appellant lost no time in intimating the Secretary by his letter dated 6-7-1988 that he had never received the adverse remarks relating to the year 1986. As for the adverse reports for the years 1984 and 1987 the appellant apprised the said authority that the adverse remarks for the year 1984 had already been expunged and his representation for expunction of the adverse remarks of the year 1987 was still pending. The re-opening of the adverse remarks relating to 1986 were communicated to the appellant by the D.O. Letter dated 7th August, 1988 issued by the said Department. On receipt of the side D.O. Letter the appellant made representation on 28th August, 1988, to the Chief Secretary, seeking expunction of the adverse remarks in question. His representation was rejected by the Chief Secretary and such intimation was conveyed to the appellant by the said Department's memo. dated 3-1-1989 which he received on 10-1-1989. As such he came up in the present appeal on 8th February, 1989. His prayer is that the adverse remarks given to him for the year 1986 may be expunged.
2. We heard the arguments of the appellant himself and also the arguments of the learned Government counsel. We also went through the record relevant for disposal of the appeal.
3. In support of his appeal, the appellant made the following submissions:
(a) That he had excellent record of service except the adverse remarks given to him by the Ex- Director, Mrs. S. Rahmat Ullah with mala fide intentions to deprive him of his due promotion/moveover.
(b) That he was awarded honorarium of one month's pay for the good work he had done during 1986.
(c) That the adverse remarks in question were communicated to him after lapse of one year and eight months.
(d) That the Reporting Officer had personal grudge and enmity with him so much so that she even misled the countersigning authority.
(c) That the appellate authority did not give him opportunity of personal hearing.
4. In order to appreciate the appellant's arguments we may first examine the adverse remarks which are the sbject-matter of this appeal. As stated above they are contained in D.O. letter dated 7th August, 1988 of the said Department. It reads as under:-- In your confidential report for the year 1986, alongside your satisfactory performance, it has been noticed that you are unscrupulous and overambitious and also obsessed with personal publicity and self projection.
5. In communicating these, remarks I have every hope that you will improve your performance during the years to come."
6. The above report was undoubtedly initiated by Mrs. S. Rehmatullah, the Ex-Director against whom the appellant has made allegations of animosity. But she was not alone in her assessment about the appellant's conduct. Her report was fully endorsed by the countersigning authority namely the Secretary who went a step further to suggest for the appellant's premature retirement. The endorsement made by the Secretary was in the following words: "I entirely subscribe to the report of the Director, more to the pen-picture she has drawn. He may be considered for premature retirement."
7. The appellant's argument that the countersigning authority was misled by the above Ex-Director was far from convincing. In our opinion the officer of the Secretary's position and status was unlikely to be duped and misguided in the manner suggested by the appellant. It would appear that in the year 1984, the same Secretary (countersigning authority) had given adverse report to the appellant, even though the same reporting authority namely Ex-Director, Mrs. S. Rehmatllah had given him good report for the said year. The Secretary had expressed his views as under:-- "As regards his working, I have no knowledge but his conduct is far from satisfactory. He is prejudiced and used political influence to get his transfer order cancelled."
8. Apart from above we have perused the relevant file containing ACRs given to the appellant from time to time. The material available in the file did not support the appellant's claim that but for the adverse reports given to him by aforementioned Ex-Director his service record was otherwise clean. We came across some adverse entries in the appellant's ACRs, which were neither initiated by the aforesaid Ex-Director nor endorsed by the same Secretary who, as has been pointed out above, had expressed himself against him twice. In this connection reference may be made to the ACR given to the appellant for the year 1988. Neither of the above two authorities was party to this ACR, but still the report given to him was more or less same; namely, "Mr. Noor Illahi Arain is over- ambitious. He has completed 27 years service and may be considered for retirement from Government service."
9. It goes without saying that the appellant had served in subordination of Mrs. Rehmatullah, the Ex- Director for pretty long time, first as Assistant Director and later as Deputy Director. Consequently she had written his ACRs for many years. Excepting for two years, 1986 and 1987, her reports were not adverse to the appellant. We are at a loss to understand why such reporting officer who had been consistently giving him good reports would suddenly turn against the appellant unless she had strong justification for doing so. In this connection the appellant's own admission contained in para. 7 of his memo. of appeal is worthy of note. It reads as under: To achieve the object of Legal Social Welfare Organisation in each village of Sindh, I had introduced a programme "Gothani Samaji Tanzeem Tehrik" and worked very closely with the rural masses who used to speak well about my work. I had also got published through the Divisional Social Welfare Committee, Hyderabad some material to motivate people (Eleven specimens attached). These publications and general reputation of good work in the rural people seems to have been termed as "personal publicity" and "self-projection". My desire to have a Social Welfare agency in each village seems to have been taken as my "over ambition".
10. Obviously the appellant did not have the necessary power or authority to indulge in the activities highlighted in his above statement. Therefore the evaluation of the appellant's conduct based on such activities made by both the reporting and countersigning authorities was not altogether misplaced. Even otherwise the appellant was unable to give cogent grounds for establishing the Ex-Director's animosity against him. All that he stated in his memo. of appeal was; "That the Reporting Officer had grudge and personal enmity with me." He however did not explain what had made her turn against him. Moreover as stated above, she was not alone in making adverse assessm ent of the appellant's conduct. Accordingly we were not impressed by the argument that impugned adverse report given to the appellant was the result of personal bias or prejudice of Ex-Director against him.
11. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the appellant had direct access to the Minister in charge of the said Department. This finds support from a copy of "Summary for Chief Minister" dated 17th December, 1986 submitted by the Minister for Jails and Social Welfare directly to the Chief Minister. In this summary the Minister had spoken high of the appellant, condemning at the same time his immediate boss namely Mrs. S. Rehmatullah, the Director Social Welfare. Strangely enough a copy of the said summary was forwarded to the appellant for information and record. In fact the appellant himself had produced the copy of the above summary for our perusal. It is true that in the summary while commending the work done by the appellant, the Minister deprecated Mrs. S. Rahmatullah, the then Director so much so that he suggested for her shifting from the post of the Director. Apart from this, the same Minister had expunged the adverse remarks given to the appellant by the countersigning authority namely the Secretary by his order which reads as under:-- "The appeal of Mr. Arain dated 11-5-1985 is still lying in the file. It should have been forwarded by Administrative Department to the Chief Secretary Sindh to whom it was addressed.
12. I expunge the remarks of the countersigning officer as the above are unjustified in view of my observation recorded on para. 180 on the noting sheet attached to the personal file bearing No, S.O.
13. (S.W.)-1-8/84 Pt. of Mr. Noor Illahi Arain."
14. The Minister may or may not have power to expunge the adverse remarks given to the appellant, the important question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant was within his right to ignore his immediate officers and gain access to the Minister directly. This was certainly against the established channel of working in the Government offices. Even otherwise such practice on the part of the appellant was against the time honoured service ethics.
15. It is true that the ACR in question was communicated to the appellant after more than one and half years. Of course by efflux of time, the sting that adverse ACR carries is gradually blunted. But that is no reason to expunge it from the record. Whatever effect it will have at the relevant time will depend upon the circumstances of each individual case. The appellant's argument that he, was not given personal hearing before disposing of his representation for expunction of the adverse remarks did not seem to be grounded on any rules or instructions. He did not cite any provision of law or rules which entitled him to I personal hearing. Therefore his argument was without force.
16. In support of his argument that he was awarded honorarium for the good work done by him during 1986, the appellant placed reliance on Annexure V which is the letter issued by the Directorate of Social Welfare, Sindh Secretariat to the Accountant General. While endorsing a copy of the said letter to the Principal Social Welfare Training Institute, Karachi, it was stated: "The honorarium has been provided for Mr. Noor Illahi, Principal, on the orders of Ex-Minister, Social Welfare for his good work during 1986." Thus even the honorarium was allowed to the appellant under the orders of the same Minister who had also expunged the adverse remarks given to him by the countersigning authority namely Secretary for the year 1984. From the material made available to us, it was not difficult to presume that some how the appellant had succeeded in winning the sympathies of the Minister of his Department. But in the process he apparently lost the goodwill of his immediate superiors.
17. Taking all the above circumstances in view, we do not think that the adverse remarks earned by the appellant for the year 1986 were entirely unjustified. Therefore we see no justification to interfere in the matter and as a result dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.