A. RASHID KHAN SHERWANI (MEMBER)- Writing of adverse remarks in the appellant's ACRs for the years 1987 and 1988 and communicating them vide Government of Sindh, Labour & Transport Department, letter No. Lab (1) 3- 59/83-11, dated December, 1991, prompted the appellant to file an appeal the respondent No.1 requesting him for their expunction, and having received no reply from him approached this Tribunal under-section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, within 30 days after the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days of filing the appeal.
2. The appellant joined service on 19-5-1983 as Assistant Director (Research) in the Directorate of Manpower & Training, Sindh. In 1987 and 1988 when he got the adverse remarks, he was still working in the same capacity. The adverse remarks given to him during this period are summarized as follows:- 1987, In parts II, III, IV and VI of the Report, he is shown below average. He was also considered "Unlikely to progress further:" '
In part V, the remarks are as under:-
1. Pen picture: Has shown no improvement in his approach towards official assignment. Tries to shirk responsibilities.
2. Counselling: Has been advised to make efforts to improve but of no result.
3. Assessm ent of A - Did not perform all the duties as performance: indicated against No. 9 of Part-1.
The remarks of the Counter-signing Officer are as under:- "Entirely agree with the assessm ent of reporting officer. He was given a chance to work under different officers. All of them tried to motivate and guide him but due to indifferent attitude he could not show any sign of improvement."
1988.
The trend is the same as remarked in the Report of 1987. The variation are, however, as under: "Part V.
1. Pen picture: A below average officer, does not take interest in his job. Not punctual in attending office. Has no capacity to improve. #tbs Counselling: Assessm ent of performance. #the Advised on working procedure but did not show any improvement.
His overall performance has been assessed as unsatisfactory. His contribution to the overall performance of this office is negligible. Instead of contributing, he create hindrances in the smooth working of this office." {{TABLE MISARRANGED}} The remarks of the counter-signing officer are as under:- "Entirely in agreement with the reporting officer. There are no two opinions that his performance is nil. A show cause notice for committing serious misconduct was issued to him. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and Secretary Labour and Co-operation taking a lenient view severely warned him vide No. Lab (1) 7-4/88, dated 17-7-1988.
3. In his appeal, the appellant has challenged the correctness of the adverse remarks and alleged that these are based on enmity and malice against him and were communicated to him after a lapse of about 4 years.
4. In their written statement the respondents have asserted that despite guidance, counselling and warnings, his work was always found unsatisfactory, he took no interest in work and remained reluctant to take responsibility.
5. We heard the counsels of the parties and also went through the relevant records produced before us. In the course of personal pleadings, the counsel of the appellant dwelt on enmity and malice, but could not advance any tangible instance to prove his contention. On examination, it was found that these two ACRs were not written by one reporting officer. The Report of 1987 is written by one officer and the report of 1988 is written by another officer. The Counter-signing Officer has also not simply counter-signed the Reports, but has also given his specific assessment.
In the absence of any logical proof, we cannot accept that all these three officers were inimical to him. Moreover, not only his two ACRs, under appeal, are adverse, but all his ACRs since 1984 are orchestrated in this time.
6. The plea of the appellant that he was not counselled is untenable as it has been clearly stated in both the ACRs that he was counselled but he did not improve. Since 1984 the appellant's ACRs are consistently engragious. These adverse reports were sufficient to shake him to demonstrate a better performance. We do not accept his futile plea that he was not counselled.
7. On the delay in the communication of adverse remarks, the view of the Tribunal in the judgment delivered in appeal of Muhammad Sadiq Versus Government of Sindh and others (Appeal No. 94/90) decided on 25th March, 1991, observed that it is not a sufficient ground to expunge the adverse remarks.
This Tribunal still holds the same view. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: - "As for delay in communication of the adverse remarks, it has been repeatedly held by this Tribunal that the delay by itself is not sufficient to expunge the adverse report though it docs effect the sting carried by such report. Of course With passage of time it loses its effectiveness, but it continues to remain on record regardless of the value to be attached to it at any particular lime."
8. We are of the considered view that the adverse remarks contained in the ACRs of the appellant for the years 1987 and 1988 cannot be expunged. The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Given under our hand and seal of this Tribunal this 8th day of February, 1993.