JUSTICE (RTD) MUNAWARALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN). Aggrieved by the adverse remarks conveyed to appellant, Mr. Kamaluddin Memon, Addl. Dist: Education Officer, Thatta, vide Education Department's letter dated 3rd October, 1988, he lost no the in making representation to the Education Minister expunction of the same. The appellant was credited with the said adverse remarks by the Director, School Education Hyderabad in his capacity as countersigning authority.
His representation was however rejected and the remarks given to him were upheld vide Education Department's order dated 17th June, 1990. On receipt of the said order on 28.7.1990, the appellant filed the present appeal on 25.8.1990.
The appellant's learned counsel being absent, he submitted his arguments personally. On the other side we heard the arguments of Mr. M. Aqil Awan. We also went through the necessary record.
The appellant was working as Addl. District Education Officer at Thatta, when he was communicated the following adverse remarks: "He is a man of vacillating nature and creates problems for self and officers."
2. The above remarks admittedly pertained to the year ending 31st December, 1987 and were recorded not by the reporting authority but by countersigning authority namely the Director School Education Hyderabad. While attacking the above remarks the appellant invited our reference to the "Instructions For Filling of the ACR Forms" printed on the prescribed ACR form. It may be pertinent to refer to sub-paras (ii) & (v) of para I of the said Instructions. They read as under:- "(ii) The Reporting and Countersigning Officer should be.
(a) as objective as possible:
(b) clear and direct not ambiguous or evasive in their remarks.
(v) Vague impressings based on inadequate knowledge or isolated incidents should be avoided."
3. Testing the impugned remarks in the light of above directions we were of the view that the remarks in question were not in tune with but were rather in violation of the said directions. They were not only vague and ambiguous but were seemingly based on inadequate knowledge and isolated incident. When the learned counsel for the official respondents was called upon to tell us the basis on which the adverse remarks were grounded, he referred us to one solitary incident of the appellant's failure to vacate certain official premises which he had un-authorizedly occupied in 1977 for his residence while he was holding the charge of Sub-divisional Education Officer, Hyderabad. The appellant vehemently denied this allegation, contending that on his transfer to Hyderabad as Sub- divisional Education Officer in 1978, he was handed over the possession of the disputed premises a year later in 1979 for the purpose of using the same as his residence. He further submitted that after to years when he was posted in 1981 as Head Master, Govt. High School Hyderabad, the residential house meant for the Head Master was in occupation of the then Director, Mr. Baqa Muhammad and therefore he (appellant) continued in possession of the disputed house.
4. In this connection it was admitted on both hands in the course of the arguments that even disciplinary action was initiated against the appellant on the charge of his omission to vacate the aforesaid premises. Although he was given show-cause notice dated 27.10.1987, to which the appellant replied promptly within the on 12.11.1987, yet no further action was taken against him until his retirement to years later on 4.6.1989. Obviously the proceedings were either dropped or abandoned. In any case the appellant was not punished for the misbehaviour allegedly displayed by him in respect of the disputed house. We failed to see how then he deserved to be conducement in different form by giving him adverse remarks for that very reason.
5. Apart from above, it was noteworthy that for the year in question (1987), the report given to the appellant by the Reporting Authority being diagonally opposite to the impugned adverse remarks, clearly belied the said remarks. We have glanced through the whole ACR for the said year which depicted the appellant as A or A officer excepting for the impugned remarks assigned to him by the countersigning authority. As pointed out above, the impugned adverse remarks apart from being vague, were totally un-justified. In other words the learned Government counsel was unable to satisfy us as to the ground on which they were based. The appellant's alleged un-authorized occupation, of the disputed premises was absolutely unacceptable as the basis for the impugned remarks. On the one hand the said remarks were not in tune with the story of the appellant's un- authorized possession of the disputed house and on the other hand there was manifestly no justification to punish the appellant indirectly by assigning him the impugned adverse remarks, when the disciplinary action actually initiated against him on the same charge was not pursued to its logical conclusion Instead the said process was either dropped or abandoned.
6. The appellant's contention that he was not sounded counselling prior to assigning him the impugned adverse remarks was also not without forcc. Admiltedly no counselling as required by the Instructions was given to him before assigning the impugned adverse remarks to him. On that ground to, the adverse remarks in question were premature and hence could not be sustained. It was also brought to our notice that after putting in long meritorious service for 42 years, the appellant has retired one and half years ago, on 4.6. 1989. In our opinion it would neither be just nor fair that instead of giving him any reward in acknowledgement of his good service record such officer be allowed to carry with him stigma of adverse remarks as a parting kick or as a sort of retirement gift and that to on most flimsy grounds.
For above reasons we allow the appeal and direct that adverse remarks impugned in the appeal be expounded. There will be no order as to costs.
Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal on this 30th day of January, 1991 at karachi.