' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant, Mr. Quadir Bux Khoso, is working as District Registrar, Registration, Jacobabad.
' He has preferred this appeal against the adverse remarks contains in his A.C.R. For the period from 1-1-1992 to 31-12-1992 communicated to him vide letter dated 10th May, 1993 by the Director- General Registration, Islamabad. He made representation to the Director-General, Registration on 8-6-1993 against the adverse remarks which was rejected vide Memorandum, dated 9th March, 1994. He made a review application on 6-4-1994 and in reply he was informed by the Deputy Director (Estt.), Directorate-General of Registration, Islamabad vide Office Memorandum, dated 26th April, 1994 that under the rules there was scope for only one representation against adverse remarks which he had already availed of and his request, therefore, could not be acceded. He was advised to agitate the matter with the Federal Service Tribunal. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 alongwith application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein he has stated that he was on leave from 19-4- 1994 to 18-6-1994 and he received the department's letter dated 26-4-1994 on return from leave; and that he had been pursuing remedy diligently and the delay in submission of appeal to the Tribunal was not intentional and, therefore, may be condoned. He has also submitted an affidavit in this context.
2. The appeal was admitted and the comments have been filed by Mr. Syed Javed Raza, Section Officer, on behalf of Ministry of Interiors and the rest of the respondents have not cared to file objections or to contest the appeal. The respondent Ministry has neither controverted the stand taken by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay, nor raised the point of Limitation that the appeal is time-barred. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent- department while rejecting the review petition vide O.M. Dated 26-4-1994 the appellant was advised to file appeal before the Tribunal and this letter of rejection was received by the appellant on return from leave whereafter he filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 18-7-1994 within 30 days. We feel that there is a case for condonation of delay and the application is accepted. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
3. We have heard Mr. Aminur Rehman Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that the appellant in all columns excepting three has been rated as 'Average' in overall grading, but the reporting officer in Part V in column (c) 'Assessment of performance' has made some certain observations which are contrary to the factual position of the case. He has taken us to the inspection report prepared by Mr. Ch. Asghar Hussain, Director (Opr) (the countersigning officer) on 15-5-1993 which was forwarded to the appellant by Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Sheikh, Assistant Director (Opr), Directorate General of Registration, Islamabad vide O.M., dated 27th May, 1993, and argued that all these points do not support the remarks given by the reporting officer. It is contended that these remarks have been given with mala fide intention to mar his promotion prospects due to less quantification.
4. Mr. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that grading is 'average' and the appellant has been found fit for promotion on his turn and the remarks will not affect the career of the appellant, and, therefore, this appeal is not competent.
5. Although the A.C.R. Is average and the appellant has been found fit for promotion, but from the communication of the A.C.R. By the Director-General it is clear that the report has been treated as adverse and has been conveyed to the appellant for information and necessary action. We have, therefore, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the whole A.C.R.
And find that in Parts II, III and IV, overall Grading is `average'. In Part V, in column pen-picture, the Reporting Officer has stated that the appellant is fit for D.R.O.. In column (b) Counselling it has been stated yes, as noted below in column (c). In column (c) Assessment of performance, the remarks are as under: "He did not pay due attention towards survey work. Besides following assignments have not been completed by him.
(1) Monthly returns not received in time.
(2) Service verification from AGPR and verification of antecedent from police.
(3) Arrangement of forms.
(4) Renewal of agreement of buildings.
(5) Condemnation of store items."
' The appellant in his departmental representation, dated 8th June, 1993 refuted each charge by giving detailed explanation as under:
(1) Survey Work. ---Survey work from 8-8-1992 to 15-1-1993 had been completed on 15-1-1993 as desired by the HQ and certificate had been submitted to HQ.
(2) Monthly returns. ---Necessary monthly returns of Tech./Survey work side as well as Admn. Side had been despatched in time and the record is available in Regional Registration Office, Karachi and HQ at Islamabad.
(3) Service verification.- --The service books of all employees duly prepared were submitted to AGPR, Karachi for verification on 17-3-1993, and the Director and Deputy Director during their visit found correct and appended a note to this effect. Furthermore, the antecedents of the employees had also been completed and checked by the Director during their visit.
Arrangement of forms. ---The Registration Forms had been arranged and properly placed and the Director personally visited the same and found in order, and certificate in this respect had been sent to HQ vide letters dated 15-2-1992 and 2-5-1993.
(5) Renewal of agreement of buildings. ---The matter had been brought to the notice of the HQ as well as Deputy Director, Sindh, DRO that the owners of the buildings were not willing to execute further agreement on the Government prevailing rates. However, new building had been located and report therefor had been duly sent to HQ and the DD, Sindh, RRO vide letter dated 18-3-1993 and the matter was pending at Headquarter.
(6) Condemnation of store items. ---List of such items duly prepared had been sent to HQ for approval which was still awaited.
From the abovementioned facts, it is clear that none of the remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer was called for and were baseless and not sustainable and are expunged. As regards the 'Below Average' rating recorded is Part III, column 11 'Perseverance and devotion to duty', and Part IV, column 6 'Work (a) Output and (b) Quality', these ratings when read with other gradings in Part III, columns 4 and 5 and in Part IV, columns 2 and 3 where for grading is `Average' there is clear-cut inconsistency in the ratings, and such an assessment cannot be termed as an objective assessm ent made with due application of mind. We, therefore, hold that the 'Below Average' grading given by the reporting officer and duly agreed by the countersigning officer, have been recorded with bias only to lower down the quantification marks of the appellant, and the result is that all the 'Below Average' grading are expunged and shall be treated as 'Average'.
6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and remarks in column (c) Part V, and 'Below Average' in column 11, Part III and column 6(a) and (b) in Part IV are expunged.