ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER). ---As the subject-matter of the abovementioned appeals and the questions of law to be considered in respect of these appeals are substantially the same, this judgment will, therefore, dispose of all the three appeals.
2. The appellant, Mehmood Ahmed while posted as Forest Ranger was given the following adverse remarks in his confidential reports relating to the periods mentioned against each: Appeal No. Period of Report Adverse remarks Recording Officer 196/92 1-6-1971 to 31-12-1971 Needsconsiderable guidance to become fully useful.
Countersigning Officer 197/92 1-1-1972 to 23-8-1972 ForestRanger must learn to put in hard work to become useful.
Countersigning Officer 198/92 15-3-1980 to 31-12-1980 Hasremained instrumentalin forwarding Exaggerated Muster Rolls.
Reporting Officer,
3. The representations filed by the appellant for the expunction of these remarks were rejected by the competent authority and hence these appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the aforesaid that the aforesaid adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer for the periods relating to the years 1971 and 1972 were advisory in nature and need not have been conveyed as adverse remarks. Reliance was placed on the case reported as 1991 PLC (C.S.) 557 and a few others.
5. The learned District Attorney was hard put to defend these remarks which by any stretch of imagination could not be categorised as adverse. In fact, the remarks relating to the year 1971 are addressed to the Reporting Officer who was advised to provide adequate guidance to the official so that he could become fully useful. However, the 1972 remarks were for the benefit of the official himself who was advised to work hard to become more useful. Both the remarks being advisory in nature were not meant to be conveyed to the appellant as adverse.
6. As far as the remarks given by the Reporting Officer in the column `Pen Picture' relating to the year 1980 are concerned the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently denied having submitted any exaggerated muster rolls and contended that these remarks must be the outcome of some misunderstanding. Since in the specific columns of this report the Reporting officer had himself rated the appellant's sense of responsibility in financial matters and otherwise as good and did not doubt his integrity any reference to the exaggerated musters rolls was contrary to the remarks given by him in the specific columns. The former should therefore give way to the latter. In the circumstances only the remarks given in the specific columns are to be given credence and retained. Reliance has been placed on the case reported as 1988 PLC (C.S.) 398. Further, contended that had he really submitted any exaggerated muster rolls disciplinary action should have been taken against the appellant but nothing of the sort was done. Not even an explanation was called. According to the counsel the remarks are vague and conjectural as no specific incident of submission of exaggerated muster rolls has been quoted.
7. None of the above contentions could be controverted by the respondents. They could neither cite any incident nor could they produce any exaggerated muster roll to justify the adverse remarks. In fact, they have admitted in so many words that no action was taken against the appellant on this account. Not even a warning was issued although the matter deserved to be taken a serious note of and could even result in the award of a major punishment. The words `remained instrumental' suggest that the appellant had been submitting, at someone's behest, exaggerated muster rolls for some time and had thus acquired a habit of indulging in this nefarious activity. We do not, however, find any mention of this erratic behaviour in any of the confidential reports which proceeded the 1980 report and even those which followed it.
8. As the remarks recorded in the confidential reports of the appellant relating to the ears 1971 and 1972 are evidently advisory in nature it is therefore hereby ordered that the same shall not be used to the disadvantage of the appellant in any service matter such as promotion grant of selection grade move over etc. The remarks given in the report for the year 1980 are manifestly vague and conjectural and the respondents have not succeeded in justifying or substantiation them. The same are therefore expunged. Resultantly the three appeal are accepted and all the impugned orders set aside. There are no orders as to costs.