' ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant, Nazir Ahmad, while posted as Subject Specialist, Government Comprehensive High School, Faisalabad was given the following adverse remarks by the Headmaster of the school in the appellant's ACR for the year 1984: Part-B
5. Integrity:
(iii) Believed to be corrupt:
(b) Other consideration Negative consideration.
Part-C General Remarks: He is an egoist and I have found him an irresponsible servant.
2. Appellant's representation against the above remarks was rejected by the competent authority vide orders dated 30-3-1986/11-8-1988 after obtaining and taking into consideration comments of the reporting officer. The present appeal is directed against the above impugned orders whereby the said representation of the appellant was rejected.
3. We have heard the parties and have also examined the relevant record made available to the Tribunal. During his submissions before this Tribunal the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the adverse remarks conveyed to the appellant, who has since retired, suffer from inherent contradictions and infirmities. He argued that these adverse remarks were actually the result of an incident which had annoyed the Headmaster. According to the learned counsel for the appellant there was difference of opinion between the Headmaster and the appellant in handling a situation when a relative of the Headmaster had misbehaved with the students. The appellant had recommended for action in the staff meeting against this relative of the Headmaster but the suggestion did not find favour with the Headmaster. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that a person cannot become irresponsible overnight if he was punctual, dutiful and honest only last year. He further added that to be an egoist and to be irresponsible are traits of character which if found in a person persist for years and should have found mention in the previous ACRs also. He, therefore, urged the Tribunal to expunge these remarks which were whimsical in nature and which the reporting officer has failed to substantiate. He also pointed out that in the comments offered by the reporting officer it has clearly been recommended that he had no objection if the adverse remarks were expunged.
4. Learned District Attorney placing reliance largely on the written objections submitted by the respondents argued that the defects pointed out by the reporting officer in the ACR were the result of his observations during the period of the impugned report which he had faithfully and honestly recorded with which the countersigning officer had also agreed. These adverse remarks were thus correctly communicated to the appellant in the hope that he would remove these defects. He, therefore, submitted that no exception may be taken against the impugned order rejecting the representation of the appellant.
5. The assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that except for this solitary report for the year 1984 the CR dossier of the appellant does not contain any other adverse report which are all clean and blotless, has not been controverted by the respondents in the written objections filed by them and the learned District Attorney during his submissions before this Tribunal. In the circumstances, the observation of the reporting officer that the appellant was an irresponsible public servant cannot be taken at its face value on the ground that the appellant had never earned a similar remark previously during a long period of almost 37 years of service under a number of Headmasters. Even the reporting officer, under whom the appellant has earned two annual reports, one for the year 1983 and the other for the year 1984, had not adjudged him irresponsible during the year 1983. We are not prepared to believe that a person who was rated as dutiful, punctual and honest and whose judgment and sense of proportion as also supervision and control over subordinates were considered satisfactory by the same reporting officer, would suddenly become irresponsible overnight. A solitary incident is not sufficient to record the adverse remarks of such nature. The reporting officer had obviously lost his cool and recorded these remarks which in any event are out of all proportions to the lapse on the part of the appellant and therefore uncalled for and unjustified. Irresponsibility like dishonesty is a trait of character which stays on with a person and cannot spring up suddenly nor can this trait leave him abruptly. The obvious conclusion is that the reporting officer had manifestly acted whimsically while recording these remarks.
6. The other remark recorded by the reporting officer about the appellant that he is an egoist begs the question if the remark should at all be construed as adverse. We would not like to discuss here the philosophical dimensions of the term ego. However, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word egoist as one who makes regard to his own interest the guiding principle of his conduct and one who talks much about himself. Thus though this may not be too laudatory a trait of one's character yet it cannot be dubbed as something wholly negative. It seems that the appellant had been a little too assertive in certain matters which prompted the reporting officer to call him an egoist. The word egoist is sometimes misused for the word egoist which means the overstressing of one's worth. Seen in the backdrop of the circumstances leading to the recording of this remark by the reporting officer it appears to be the only plausible reason for characterising the appellant as egoist by the reporting officer. In their written objections the respondents have stated that "the appellant believes himself to be more experienced and wiser than the said reporting officer and behaved in a manner which showed insubordination and this is what the reporting officer had recorded in the ACR of 1984." In the comments offered by the reporting officer on the representation of the appellant the former had clearly stated that "this year there was a dispute in the school in which the activities of the above-named teacher against the interests of the school due to which I had given such remarks in his ACR for the period 1-1-1984 to 31-12-1984" The appellant has also stated in this appeal that "there was difference of opinion in handling a situation on one day of the year but the appellant was correct in his opinion being an older and more experienced and more qualified educationist in the field than the reporting officer.."
7. It would thus seem that the reporting officer was correct in his estimation of the appellant that the appellant was an egoist but we do not agree that this remark should be taken as adverse.
Many a time it happens that a person may honestly feel strongly indignant over a certain matter but if he were to view it dispassionately there may really be nothing to it. In this particular case both the parties were looking at the incident mentioned above from their respective angles and both of them were considering the other party at fault. Taking an objective and dispassionate view of the proceedings we feel that it was this particular incident which influenced the thinking of the Headmaster in relation to the conduct of the appellant and this was what made him characterise the appellant as an egoist despite the fact that when he wrote his ACR for the previous year he had nothing but priaise for this teacher. One could safely assume that it was an emotional outburst on the part of the reporting officer. We, therefore, hold that this remark should 'hot be considered as adverse nor should it be used against the appellant in matteers relating to the grant of annual increment or any other service benefit which might have accrued to the appellant while he was in service.
8. As regards the remarks 'Negative consideration' under the heading `Integrity' and sub-heading 'Believed to be corrupt: other consideration' we are not inclined to take these remarks as adverse.
During his entire service career extending over forty years or so the appellant had never been reported upon as corrupt or dishonest by any one of the Headmasters under whom he worked.
Even in the impugned report the reporting officer has rated him as honest in no ambiguous words.
Under the sub-heading 'Incorruptible' under the main heading `Integrity' the reporting officer has stated that he had found the appellant honest. Under the sub-headings 'Reported to be corrupt' and 'Believed to be corrupt' he has written 'Not ever'. Under the sub heading 'Monetary consideration' the reporting officer has rated the appellant's integrity as satisfactory. Even in the ACR for the year 1983 of the appellant he had rated his integrity as satisfactory. Against the sub- heading 'Other consideration' also he had considered the appellant's integrity as satisfactory. It is thus clear that as far as the impugned report for the year 1984 is concerned the reporting officer did not ever doubt the appellant's integrity. What really seems to have happened is that instead of writing in simple English 'Nil' or 'No' against the sub-heading 'Other consideration' under the heading 'Believed to be corrupt' the reporting officer used the words 'Negative consideration'. Thus like the word 'egoist' which we have discussed above, we do not find the phrase 'Negative consideration' as an adverse rating of the appellant's integrity. We are certain that this could not be the intention of the reporting officer as well.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to the "Instructions for filling the ACR forms' which are invariably appended to the ACR forms. In para 13 of these instructions it is clearly laid down that:- "The Countersigning Officer should underline in red ink the remarks which in his opinion are adverse and should be communicated to the officer reported upon."
10. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellant also cited the case reported as 1988 PLC (C.S.) 560: Saadat Ullah Mian v. Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, C&W Department, Lahore wherein this Tribunal had held as under:- .And nowhere the Countersigning Officer had underlined the remarks given by the Reporting Officer for conveying to the appellant as required under the aforesaid instruction No,13. It is, thus clear that the Countersigning Officer had not approved and upheld the remarks of the reporting officer for communication to the appellant.
8. We have no hesitation to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that adverse remarks of the reporting officer which were not approved by the countersigning officer, were not required to be communicated to the appellant and this exercise has been done in futility against the instructions which have the force of Rules."
11. In the instant case the Countersigning Officer has merely affixed his signatures on the report and has not underlined any of the remarks recorded by the reporting officer. As such in the light of the judgment delivered in the above-cited case these remarks should not have been considered as adverse and communicated to the appellant.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and the cogent reasons given by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions as also the recommendation of the reporting officer that he has no objection if the said remarks are expunged, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 30-6-1986/11-8-1988 and direct that the remarks communicated to the appellant be expunged from his ACR for the year 1984. There will be no order as to costs.
13. Copy of the signed judgment be released to the parties according to the procedure of the Tribunal.