GHULAM MUJADID ISRAN (MEMBER).- Appellant Khuda Bux presently working as Divisional Forest Officer Planning, Hyderabad has filed this appeal with a prayer to set aside and expunge adverse remarks conveyed to him by Section Officer Forests Fisheries and Livestock on behalf of the Secretary of the Department under his letter dated 08-2-1992 relating to period 21-9-1991 to 31- 12- 1991. The adverse remarks communicated to the appellant vide the said letters are reproduced hereunder:- "I am directed to convey the following adverse remarks since records in your Annual Confidential Report for the period from 21-09-1991 to 31-12-1991:
(a) Pen-Picture.
Rather medicare without any significant trait worth highlighting in the pen picture. A queer and complex person.
(b) Counselling.
He has been counselled personally to improve upon his way of working, disposal of the periodical returns and draft writings.
(c) Assessm ent of performance.
His performance has hardly been impressive and at time it was painfully way ward and arratic.
2/- In communicating the above remarks it is hoped that you will not only make earnest efforts to improve your conduct but will also try to devote your whole hearted attention to your professional duties so that such an occasion does not arise in future.
3/- The duplicate copy may be signed and returned to this Department."
The appellant preferred a departmental appeal dated 12-2-1992 to the Chief Secretary which is still pending decision and he filed this appeal after expiry of statutory period of 90 days.
2. We heard the appellant in person as well as Mr. Habib Rasheed for official respondents. We also perused the relevant record with their assistance.
3. The main arguments of the appellant were that the said adverse remarks were given .To him with mala fide intention with a object to create a hindrance for promotion from his present grade to BPS 19. We went through the record of the case to find whether any documentary or oral evidence was available to make us believe that Mr. Afzal Haq the Chief Conservator of Forest and the reporting officer had any way tried to harm him by standing in his way of promotion.. The appellant referred to a letter dated 8-9-1992 addressed to him by the Chief Conservator of Forests by which certain observations were made by him on TA/DA bill claimed by the appellant. The bill pertained to the visit of the appellant to Karachi. The appellant tried to prove through that letter that the Chief Conservator of Forests was annoyed due to his presence in they meeting convened by the Minister of the Department. He stated that he attended the said meeting on the instructions of the Chief Conservator conveyed to him vide his another letter dated 25-8-1992. We have perused the said letter and found that the officers through that letter were directed to meet in the office of the Secretary to consider the agenda for the meeting with the Minister. To our question the appellant could not satisfy us as to why he did not attend the meeting called by the Secretary of the Department in his office. However since the said adverse entries were made on 03-1-1992 prior to the above mentioned letters, we were not impressed with this piece of evidence to feel that the reporting officer bore any ill will or grudge against the appellant at the time of initiating the said report. The appellant is reported to have served directly under the said reporting officer for the first time. The superior officers are at free will to express themselves freely while recording their opinion concerning their subordinate. If the aggrieved person is of the opinion that the remarks were unjustified and with mala fide intention, he has to prove the same with cogent reasons.
4. The appellant further argued that no counselling has been done in his case. We have gone through the disputed ACR. The remarks in sub-part (b) of part V of the report indicates the appellant was personally counselled. The relevant portion of the remarks is reproduced as under:- "He has been counselled personally to improve upon his way of working, disposal of the periodical returns and draft writings."
5. This being the situation we do not agree with the contention of th appellant that he was not counselled unless proved otherwise. Further more these remarks have been counter signed by the next higher authority, therefore, we do not find any reason to doubt the same.
6. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed as being without any merit. However there will be no order as to costs.