JUSTICE GHULAM MUJADID ISRAN Member.- Mr. Muhammad Jaffer Abbasi Deputy Secretary Sind Public Service Commission has filed this appeal under Section 4 of Sind Service Tribunals Act 1973 in which he has prayed that the adverse entries communicated to him through letter D.O. No. PSC/ADMN/ACRs/1990/3769 dated 20th August, 1990 be expunged.
2. Brief facts of the case arc that the appellant was posted as Deputy Secretary in Sind Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission). The Chairman of the Commission as Counter Signing Officer gave him adverse remarks in his ACR for the period 1.1.89 to 31.12.1989. The adverse remarks were communicated to him through letter dated 20-8-90. He submitted representation to the Chief Secretary against the said remarks which was considered by the competent authority and rejected and conveyed to the appellant vide office order dated 21.8.1991.
Being dissatisfied with the decision he filed this appeal before this Tribunal.
3. We heard Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi counsel of the appellant and Mr. Habibur Rasheed for official respondents. We also went through the relevant record brought before us by the parties.
It would be useful to reproduce the adverse entries in dispute:- "You entered into petty intrigues to go up as early as possible, to have important and lucrative posting in the office of Sind Public Service Commission. Frequently defied orders of superiors. Is not amenable to discipline. I don't think, you did any job of outstanding ability to have been assessed 'very good and fit for accommodated promotion during very short period of your Service. I disagree with the assessm ent of the reporting officer, in view of your work and conduct. The assessment should be considered amended accordingly in the light of above observations."
4. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant were that the appellant was responsible to respondent No.3 namely the Secretary of the Commission and had never worked directly under the counter signing officer and that no counselling was made in the case during the disputed period. He further argued that the adverse entries are not supported by any material on record. He therefore requested to set aside the adverse entries. The learned Government Counsel conceded to the above facts and supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the Learned counsel for the parties. The service record of the appellant has been found to be satisfactory, exceed that an explanation dated 9-2-1989 was issued to him due to late submission of a case of High Court to which he explained his position which was accepted by the Department and filed on 16-3-1989.
6. There is nothing or record to indicate that any counselling or warning was issued to the appellant during the period under adverse report. The impugned adverse entries are also not supported by any material available on record. Further it would be interesting to know that the appellant's performance during 1988 was assessed as 'good' by the same learned counter signing officer. We have carefully perused the entries of the ACR of 1989 and find that the reporting officer has assessed the officer as 'very good'. In the column of assessment of performance of the ACR form he said that the appellant has contributed a lot in framing Rules and Regulations of various Departments. We have noticed that the learned counter signing officer has not given any cogent reason by quoting specific instance for his dis-agreement with the reporting officer with regard to the work of the appellant. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this tribunal in case of Khuda Dino Soomro Versus the Chairman Sind Public Service Commission & others (Case No. 93 of 1991) decided on 28th November 1991 where in following observation was made:- "We are constrained to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the reporting officer who records the report on the work of his subordinate is the person best succeed to judge the competence of person working under:- In view of the above facts we find that the observations made against the appellant are without any base. We therefore proceed to accept the appeal with no order as to costs and direct that the impugned adverse remarks may be expunged from the ACR 1989 of the appellant."
7. The above observation is fully applicable to the facts of this case. So there is no reason to up held the adverse entries which are not supported by any cogent evidence.
8. We therefore accept the appeal with no order as to costs and direct that the adverse entries in the Appellants ACR for the period 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1989 be expunged.
Given under our hand and the seal of this Tribunal this 13th day of January, 1992.