1. ' ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).---An enquiry under the E & D Rules, 1975 was held against Dr. Muhammad Sharif, Veterinary Officer (H), Seetapur, District Muzaffargarh on charges of absence without leave etc. The enquiry was initiated on 11-7-1982 and concluded on 27-9-1983 when the Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development in his capacity as Authority decided, after hearing the accused officer, to issue him a warning. The Authority also directed the D.G. Extn. Punjab to "issue him (the appellant) a warning to be careful in future." The period of absence was subsequently ordered to be treated as earned leave vide orders dated 12-4-1984 of the Deputy Director, L&DD, Multan Division.
2. ' While the above departmental enquiry was in progress during the period 11-7-1982 to 27-9-1983 the fact that a case/enquiry against the appellant was under process was duly reflected as adverse entries in his ACRs for the years 1981 and 1982 as under: 1981 Cases of absence against the V.O. Are -countersigning Officer under process.
3. 1982 Absence case enquiry pending? -Reporting Officer Needs closer supervision. -Countersigning Officer ' In the next ACR for the year 1983 under Part V(b) captioned `Counselling' the following remarks relating to the aforementioned case/enquiry were recorded by the Reporting Officer which too were graded as adverse and conveyed to the appellant: "In a case of absence he was warned vide No, 12464, dated 15-10-1983 by Director, Extn. Production & A.I., Pb. Lahore to be careful in future. Now he has improved his working considerably."
4. ' The above order dated 15-10-1983 was issued by the Director, Extn. Production & A.I., Pb. To the Deputy Director, I&DD, Multan. While enclosing with it a copy of the Secretary, L&DD's orders dated 27-9-1983 he had directed the Deputy Director to warn Dr. Muhammad Sharif, V.O. To be careful in future.
5. ' The present appeal filed by the Veterinary Officer is directed against these ACRs, The appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks be expunged from the aforesaid three reports.
6. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney and gone through the relevant record produced before us in particular the papers pertaining to the above enquiry and representations of the appellant. The 3 ACRs containing the impugned remarks have also been closely examined.
7. As indicated above, the formal enquiry against the appellant was initiated on 11-7-1982 whereas the enquiry in his ACR for the year 1981 to the effect that "cases of absence against the V.O. Are under process" was made on 1-2-1982. This entry was, therefore, premature as no formal enquiry had been ordered until then against the officer in this case. However, if the Reporting Officer was only referring to the preliminary investigations being conducted in the same case prior to the ordering of a formal enquiry under the E & D Rules, even then the entry has lost its purpose in view of the orders of the Authority dated 27-9-1983 wherein no penalty was imposed on the appellant and the officer was only administered a warning to be careful in future.
8. ' Reference made by the Reporting Officer to the enquiry pending against the appellant in the absence case in his ACR for the year 1982 also deserves similar treatment and for the same reasons. Similarly, the remarks of the Countersigning Officer that the appellant "needs closer supervision" cannot by any stretch of imagination be categorised as adverse and as such there was no occasion or justification to convey these remarks to the appellant. In fact, these remarks are of a general nature, non-specific and in any case were meant for the benefit of the appellant's supervisory/reporting officer. These remarks cannot, therefore, be treated as adverse.
9. ' As regards the entry made in the appellant's ACR for the year 1983 to the effect that "In a case of absence he was warned vide No, 12464, dated 15-10-1983 by the Director Ext. Production & A.I., Punjab, Lahore to be careful in future. Now he has improved his working considerably, "we are at our wits end as to how these remarks were considered as adverse. This entry has recorded a statement of fact that an enquiry was held against the appellant in which he was administered a warning. This cannot in any way be classified as adverse. Even if one may assume for argument's sake that this was an adverse entry, its effect has completely been erased by the concluding sentence wherein it was reported that the appellant had since improved his working considerably.
10. Even the Countersigning Officer had recorded that "The warning had healthy effect. Work and conduct gradually improving."
11. ' Another mitigating but important factor which also deserves attention is that barring the aforementioned so-called adverse remarks in the three ACRs all other entries in these reports could safely be declared as 'good'. In the appellant's ACR for 1981 the Reporting Officer has categorically and clearly rated him as a `good officer'. Similarly, the report for the year 1982 can definitely be graded as a good report. Under the heading pen-picture, the Reporting Officer has stated that the appellant is "religious minded and good working officer". He has further recorded under the heading Assessm ent of Performance "Doing satisfactorily". In his ACR for the year 1983 too he has been given good/satisfactory remarks. The Reporting Officer under the heading Pen- Picture has remarked that "Mr. Muhammad Sharif is performing his duties satisfactorily." Under the heading Assessm ent of Performance he has further stated that "during the period under report his work and conduct remained good." The remarks of the Countersigning Officer, as already quoted above, are also commendatory.
12. ' In this connection reference may also be made to para. 29 of Punjab Government's 'Inntructions About Confidential Reports' wherein it has clearly been laid down that "A warning administered to a Government servant should ordinarily not find its way into the Character Roll as it is not a penalty in accordance with the E&D Rules and as such is not appealable. Where it is decided in any particular case to place it on the Character Roll of an officer he should be informed accordingly. In case of representation, if any, made by the officer the order passed by the competent authority on such representation should also be placed on the Character Roll." In the order of the Authority dated 27- 9-1983 the only direction given was that the officer should be issued a warning to be careful in future. No orders were passed by the Authority to the effect that this was a recordable warning which should be placed on the CR dossier of the officer. That being, the case no mention of this warning was needed in the 1983 ACR of the appellant. However, the only justification for this entry could be that prior to the deletion of para. 27 of the aforesaid Instructions in 1984 it was also the requirement of these Instructions that.." final orders passed as a result of the enquiry should also be placed on the C.R." In order to meet this requirement of the aforesaid "Instructions" ordinarily a copy of the Authority's letter dated 27-9-1983 should have been placed on the Character Roll of the appellant. If that was not done, then the aforementioned entry in the 1983 ACR under the heading 'Counselling' could also be considered to have been made in compliance of the said requirement of the "Instructions". In any event, it was by no means an adverse entry.
13. ' For these reasons we accept the appeal and order that the following impugned remarks in the ACRs of the appellant for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 should not be graded as adverse:-- 1981 Remarks dated 1-2-1982 by the Countersigning Officer: " Cases of absence against the V.O. Are under process." 1982 Remarks dated 20-3-1983 by the Reporting Officer: "Absence case enquiry pending"
14. ' Remarks dated 29-3-1983 by the Countersigning Officer: "Needs closer supervision"
15. 1983 Remarks dated 25-1-1984 by the Reporting Officer: ' In a case of absence he was warned vide No, 12464, dated 15-10-1983 by Director, Ext. Production & AI. Pb., Lahore to be careful in future. Now he has improved his working considerably."
16. ' There is no order as to costs.