' MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).---The appellant, Muhammad Ashraf has come in appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for seeking expunction of adverse remarks for the year 1992 contained in his ACR conveyed vide Letter No, CRA/8, dated 10-1-1994. The relevant remarks which have been prayed for to be expunged are as under:-- {{TABLE}} "Column By Reporting By Countersigning Officer Officer Dy.SS.RP (DIG,PRP)
15. Integrity Controversial Corrupt
17. Class of report 'B' 'C'
18. General Remarks Average Police Officer. Lacks good reputation.
2. In the first place it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that being aggrieved by the impugned order he submitted a departmental representation on 14-2-1994 but he was informed vide Endorsement No, CRA/31, dated 26-3-1994 that the appellant has not clearly mentioned about the adverse entries recorded by the Reporting Officer as well as Countersigning Officer separately and directed to resubmit detailed representation throwing lights on his laps. He, therefore, preferred a representation on 29-3-1994 which was rejected on 3-7-1994 and the appellant assailed the same before this Tribunal on 31-7-1994.
3. In the second place it was argued that the impugned adverse remarks were communicated at the belated stage i.e, after a lapse of full one year. The whole copy of the ACR was not supplied to the appellant alongwith adverse remarks. In the third place it was submitted that during the year 1992, no counselling was ever given to the appellant. His emphasis was that the adverse entries were recorded in his ACR due to mala fide intention of respondent No, 4 as he had intended to promote his closely relative ASI namely Mr. Baqar Mohiuddin who is not even qualified for promotion and was junior to him in the seniority list circulated by the office.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents concluded that it is only domain of the Reporting Officer to assess and give his opinion according to the work and conduct of the officer under report. He, however, -submitted that earlier to 1990-92, he was censured in one case in 1978 awarded punishment of WIP in second case but on an appeal subsequently was converted into censure and in third case he was 'exonerated, thus the Reporting Officer was justified for recording adverse remarks in the ACR for the year under report.
5. We have given anxious thoughts to the arguments of both the parties and are of the view that according to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in 1990 SCM R 1431 wherein it was held that in recording adverse remarks or opinions although full reasons are not needed to be given but conclusion has to be based on facts and the Reporting Officer should give plausible explanation to justify the adverse entries. Where the Recording Officer is failed to do so, the Service Tribunal is justified in interfering with the order passed by the concerned officer. In the present case the Reporting Officer has failed to give plausible explanation while recording ACR and counselling during the year under report. We also asked the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the departmental representative to produce any letter of counselling or memo ever issued during the year 1992 in this regard but both of them also failed to produce any letter of counselling.
6. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that on the strength of the Supreme Court ruling, the adverse remarks were not justifiable and we accordingly set aside and expunge the same with all consequential benefits, if any, with no order as to costs.