ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant, Abdul Rehman, while working as Clerk of Court/Superintendent in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhakkar was given the following adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 1991 by respondent No. 1/District and Sessions Judge, Bhakkar: "Power of expression
(a) written= Below average.--- His representation against the said remarks was rejected by respondent No. 2 and hence the instant appeal.
2. The appellant has contended among others that he has never been given any such remarks previously by any of his Reporting/Countersigning Officers. In fact even the Confidential Report for the preceding year, which too was written by the same Reporting Officer, did not contain any adverse remarks of this nature and as such these remarks were not based on facts but were the outcome of malice. Further, contended that these remarks were not supported by any cogent and visible material and that no advice or counselling was ever given to him on this account. As regards the appellate order the appellant has contended that it was not a speaking order as no reason has been given for rejecting his representation. Finally, he has complained that he was not granted selection grade on account of the impugned adverse report.
3. While respondent No. 1 has not filed any objections respondent No. 2 has stated that the previous reports earned by the appellant were a matter of record and should not be compared with the impugned one and that the positive report given by the same Reporting Officer previously was indicative of the fact that his assessment was fair and without any bias.
4. In the case reported as 1993 PLC (C.S.) 142 the learned Chairman of this Tribunal, Malik Akhtar Hassan, then Judge of the Lahore High Court, had observed as under: "It was established that this was a first instance of recording adverse remarks against the appellant. In Farooq Ahmed v. Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and 2 others 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1295 unblemished record of 14 years was considered enough reason to expunge adverse remarks. The appellant's service career was much longer, that is 21 years without any adverse entry. There should have been some strong reason and of course, justified that he had deteriorated his image so as to have been dubbed to be a reputedly corrupt officer."
5.In another case cited as 1983 PLC (C.S:) 303 this Tribunal had made the following observations: "Similarly, we cannot accept at its face value the observation of the reporting officer as well as of the countersigning authority that the appellant was inefficient civil servant and not up to the mark in discharge of tire duties can gate ground that this very officer who has stood the test of score of senior officers of this Government for his performance of duties during the long tenure of more than 24 years of service under them and was also recipient of a good report by reporting officer himself would suddenly become inefficient and man of doubtful integrity over night. 1 n efficiency and corruption are tracts of character which linger on with a person and cannot be developed suddenly then can leave him abruptly."
6. In the case of the present appellant also the impugned report is the only adverse report earned 6y him. Likewise, in his case also the same Reporting Officer had given him a clean chit during the preceding year. Thus, keeping in view the entire service record of the appellant as also taking into consideration the positive report given by the same Reporting Officer during the preceding year, we are of the considered view that the impugned adverse entry seems to be the result of some misunderstanding. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the said entry in his ACR for the year 1990 be expunged.
7. In our view the competent authority should not have given so much importance to the impugned adverse entry while considering the appellant's case for the, grant of selection grade. Grant of selection grade is a matter of considerable importance in the career of a civil servant as it is accompanied by a raise in his emoluments. To deny this monetary benefit to a civil servant merely on the basis of a solitary adverse entry and that too on the ground of inadequacy of written expression was' not being generous on the part of the competent authority.
8. Even a minor punishment is not allowed to stand in the way of promotion of a civil servant. We, therefore, do not consider that such an, insignificant adverse entry in the appellant's confidential record should be allowed to block the grant of selection grade to him who, we understand, has since retired from service. It is accordingly directed that his case for the grant of selection grade shall be placed before the appropriate selection/competent authorities for reconsideration. We are sure that this time they would be a little more considerate. There are no orders as to costs.