IMTIAZ RASOOL, MEMBER.~Appellant Ali Gohar Abro presently working as Executive Engineer in the Communication and Works Department of the Govt, of Sind has filed this appeal seeking quashment of the adverse remarks conveyed to him by Section Officer E(1) on behalf of Secretary of the aforesaid Department under his letter dated 28.8.1986 relating to the calendar year 1983. ACR of the appellant for the year 1983 has been recorded in parts, by to reporting officers. The adverse remarks communicated to the appellant vide the said letter are reproduced hereunder.
((Table Start))a) Period from 1.1.1983 to 4.9.1983:- i) Ability j. To produce Constructive ideas: Below average ii) Financial responsibility: Below average iii) Relations with superiors: Below average iv) Behaviour with public: ' Period from 10.9.1983 to 31.12.1983. Below average i) Intelligence. Below average ii) Confidence & will power: Below average i) Emotional Stability. Below average iv) Ability to produce Constructive ideas. __ Below average v) Initiative & Drive. Below average vi) Preservance devotion to duty. Below average vii) Power of Expression. a) Written.
Oral. Below average viii) Supervision & Guidance. Below average ix) Ability to take decision. Below average((Table end))
3. The appellant preferred a departmental representation dated 9.9.1986 to the appointing authority against the aforesaid entries which was rejected by the competent authority as communicated by Section Officer (E-1), Communication and Works Department, Govt, of Sind vide letter dated 4.8.1988 addressed to the Chief Engineer Highways with copy to the appellant. Copy of the same was also forwarded by the C&W Department to the appellant directly through letter dated 30.10.1988.
We heard Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan for the appellant in support of the appeal. Mr. Salman Ansari, Govt.
Counsel argued in the case on behalf of the official respondents. We have also carefully examined the case papers/record.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant are that assessment of the reporting officers is neither harmonious and objective nor justified and factual.
We feel that evaluation and assessm ent of performance is to be made by the reporting officer who is within his legal rights to award adverse remarks in one or more aspects of the conduct and work of the civil servant being reported upon.
Further arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are that excepting the report for 1983 the appellant's confidential record has been clean and free from any adverse remarks. He obviously based this argument on the ground that adverse remarks of no other year than the one in question were communicated to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant thus found it difficult to visualise appellant's performance deteriorating suddenly to fall below the "Below Average" grading in the calendar year 1983. In order to appreciate fully the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant we went through the personal file of the appellant containing ACRs for other years. Persual of this file showed that the ACRs have average and adverse entries. He even represented against adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the period 1.5.87 to 31.12.1987 communicated to him under C&W Department letter dated 14.6.1988 i.e. Before this appeal was filed on 28.11.1988. This representation was finally rejected by the competent authority. The assessm ent as reported upon in the year 1983 thus cannot be construed as sudden, having accrued over-night. It is note-worthy that the reporting officers are not alone in the assessment of the appellant for the year 1983, but the reports for the said year have been concurred by the counter signing officer next higher authority namely Chief Engineer, Highways, Govt, of Sind, Hyderabad. Further-more, the appellant's representation made to the Chief Secretary to Govt, of Sind for expunction of the adverse remarks was rejected. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant thus does not carry weight.
5. Further the counsel for the appellant argued that under Instruction 4 of the ACR FORM the reporting officers are expected to counsel the officer being reported upon about his weak points with the advice to improve, no such counselling has been done in the case by the reporting officers. The record shows that the to officers who reported upon performance of the appellant for the year 1983 advised him through formal communications (letters) to improve upon various aspects of his working. Atleast four such references all addressed in 1983, have been produced from record, one is addressed to all Executive Engineers of Highway Circle Sukkur including the appellant and the other three to the appellant only. Besides this, reporting officer who "are report for major portion of the year (viz 1.1.1983 to 4.9.1983) while commenting on the representation made by the appellant for expunction of the adverse remarks given in the ACR for 1983 has stated in clear terms that the appellant was also counselled verbally His words are "He has been verbally counselled but to no effect, hence remarks incorporated in his confidential report."
6. The learned counsel for the appellant went on to say that there is no reflection of the adverse remarks communicated to the appellant in the 'Pen Picture' of the ACR of the appellant for the year 1983. Careful examination of the ACRs of the appellant for 1983 has revealed that in the part for the period 10.9.1983 to 31.12.1983, the record officer has recorded the following remarks under Pen- Picture "Requires improvement in punctuality and sense of responsibility."
7. These remarks were somehow not communicated with the other adverse remarks for the year 1983 to the appellant. The Administrative Department may like to look into the circumstances under which the lapse occurred. This however does not form any ground for expunction of the other adverse remarks recorded in the ACR and communicated to the appellant.
8. As a last resort, the learned counsel for the appellant pressed for expunction of the adverse remarks on the ground of delay in communicating the same to the appellant. According to him the adverse remarks for the year 1983 have been communicated in August, 1986, thus have been" abnormally delayed which have violated the mandatory instructions on the subject.
9. In terms of clarification issued by Govt, of Sind vide Notification No.SO VIII-Regulation (S&GAD)37/72 dated 27.9.1975, mere omission to communicate the adverse remarks within the prescribed the limit will not have the effect of washing of such remarks and these shall be equally effective as though communicated within the. Adverse entries communicated to the appellant, though late, were as effective as though communicated within time.
10. In support of his arguments regarding delay in communicating the adverse remarks, the counsel for the appellant quoted Judgement of this Tribunal given in the case of Rana Abdul Waheed reported as 1987 (PLC (C.S) 434). The reported case relied upon docs not really help in the instant case regarding the request for expunction of the adverse remarks. In the reported case it has been emphasised that late communication of the adverse remarks should be discouraged which practice was inconsistent with para 34 of the Instructions on the subject. The appellant's prayer for expunction of the remarks on the ground that these have not been communicated in the cannot be taken as a reason to expunge the same which will have the effect of washing them of.
11. In the light of the above discussion we have come to the conclusion that the adverse reports for the year 1983 communicated to the appellant shall not be expunged. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.
Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal on this 22nd day of August, 1990 at Karachi. 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.