1. ' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Sikandar Babar, Deputy Central Intelligence Officer, has filed this appeal for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. For the period 1-1-1991 to 31-12-1991. While he was posted at Quetta, he was communicated the adverse remarks contained in his A.C.R. And a copy of the report was sent to him under letter dated 20-8-1992.
2. According to this report, the appellant has been graded in 'C' 'Below Average' and 'D' ' Poor' as under: {{TABLE}} Below Average: Part II -- Column 4 -- ' Adaptability' (Alert and highly responsible).
3. Column 5 ' Understanding and tolerance' (Considerate and Cooperative).
4. Part III: Column 3 Integrity (a) General (b) (Intellectual).
5. Column 4 ' Acceptance of responsibility.
6. Column 5 ' Ability to produce constructive ideas. Column 8 'Reliability under pressure. Column 11 'Perseverance and devotion to duty. Column 12 'Relations with (b) Colleagues and (c) Subordinates.
7. PART IV: Column 4 'Supervision and Guidance'. 'Poor'
8. Part III: Column 12 'Relations with (a) Superiors'. {{TABLE}} ' In Part V in the column (a) Pen-Picture, the following remarks have been recorded by the reporting officer:
(a) Pen Picture: An officer who creates a good impression because of his personality, but I am afraid he is not straightforward and has a tendency towards dishonesty. Also likes to be (illegible), which is harmful for him as an Intelligence Officer. Lacks good discipline. Not suitable for independent posting or charge.
(b) Counselling: Yes, results not encouraging.
(c) Assessm ent of Performance: The Officer's overall performance has remained unsatisfactory. He is not interested to serve in Balochistan. Had he been disciplined and taken interest in the job, he could have achieved for better results.
9. ' In Part VI, the reporting officer has graded the appellant as 'Below Average' in the Overall Grading and in column (b) 'Not yet fit for promotion'. The countersigning officer, i,e, the Additional Director agreed with the remarks and grading of the reporting officer and in Part VII, he recorded that "adverse remarks may be conveyed please."
10. ' After receipt of the copy of A.C.R., the appellant made a representation, which was rejected vide Memorandum dated 31-5-1993. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 21-7-1993. The contention of the appellant is that the reporting officer was not competent to have recorded his A.C.R. And in his case the Assistant Director was the concerned officer under whom he worked and the report should have been initiated by him. It has also been alleged that the report has been initiated on surmises and conjectures and there was no evidence against him.
11. 2, At the time of hearing, there was no appearance from the respondents. However, the judgment was reserved and the respondents were directed to produce the record and comments. The respondents in response to the notice have furnished the record and comments.
3. We have perused the record of the case and find that the contention of the appellant that the report should have been recorded by the Assistant Director is not correct as he did not work under any supervisory officer for a period of three months and the next higher officer was the Deputy Director under whose overall control the appellant worked and he being the supervisory officer initiated the report and there is no illegality. From the documents on record, it is apparent that the report recorded by the initiating officer and duly countersigned by the competent Authority has been recorded after due application of mind and there is no inconsistency in the ratings of the reporting officer. Had there been anything of this sort, the countersigning officer being an independent and final authority, should have disagreed with the opinion of the reporting officer but he concurred with all the ratings fairly. The appellant has also not proved any bias or mala fide with the reporting officer nor during arguments did he make such allegations except that he was not competent to have initiated A.C.R. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the remarks recorded in the A.C.R. Of the appellant for the period 1-1-1991 to 31-12-1991 and are upheld.
12. The appeal, in these circumstances, having no merit is accordingly dismissed.