' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---Appellant Mr. Muhammad Saleem Saddozai, AWM/Electric/Explosives, P.O.F., Wah Cantt. Is aggrieved by advisory remarks contained in his A.C.R.
For the year 1994 and alleges that the said remarks were based on mala fide and victimisation by the senior management due to their crucial defeat in the election for the General Secretary of P.O.F.
Officers, Association whereby the appellant was elected as General Secretary with a majority of votes. The remarks conveyed to the appellant vide Confidential letter dated 6-4-1995 are as under:-- "(a) By Mr. Oazi Naeem-ud-Din Manager/Services "He is an average officer who takes more interest towards his portfolio of Class-I Officers Association as compared to the responsibilities entrusted to him as A.M./Electrical."
"(a) By Mr. Iqbal Ahmad. G,M./Explosives, "I agree". "
2. On receipt of these remarks the appellant sought clarification from the department vide his letter dated 22-4-1995 and in response the department has clarified vide their letter dated 21-5-1995 that- "It is clearly mentioned in our D.O. Letter dated 6-4-1995 that the remarks communicated to you are 'Advisory' as such no further clarification/action on this subject is required."
3. The appellant filed a departmental appeal against the impugned advisory remarks on 22-6-1995 but the same was not acceded to vide Confidential letter dated 8-7-1995. The appellant not feeling satisfied decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Muhammad Younis Manager (Legal) P.O.F. The main arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the remarks recorded in the appellant's A.C.R. For the year 1994 are not based on facts and are adverse in nature and based on mala fide and victimization due to participation of the appellant in activities of Officers Association.
5. In the written objections filed by the respondents it has been clearly mentioned that the impugned remarks are advisory and not adverse. As such the appeal against the advisory remarks is not maintainable. They also denied the allegation of mala tide and victimization by the Management. During the course of arguments it has been stated by the departmental representative that the Election for the Officers Association is a normal phenomenon and it does not provide a cause for the competent Authority to become vindictive on such matters. He also stated that the appellant was sent abroad for acquisition of M.Sc. Degree on Government expenses so as to improve his professional competence and skill. It indicates bona fide intention of the department to benefit of the appellant and in return rightly expect that appellant shall fully devote himself towards his official duties but the appellant did not maintain balance in his official work and ,obligations towards the P.O.F. Officers Association during 1994. He was, therefore, advised to take more care to the responsibilities entrusted to him as A.M./Electric.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the parties and documents especially the advisory remarks. We are of the considered view that the remarks are of advisory nature.
7. The plain reading of confidential letter dated 6-4-1995 and clarification letter dated 21-5-1995 as well as written objections of the respondents and commitment of the representative at the Bar clearly confirm our view that the remarks are of advisory nature and not adverse. It is the prerogative of every employer to guide and advise his employees in respect of their work and conduct. This right is unquestionable. The Tribunal and, as a matter of fact, none else, can interfere with this power. The exact nature of advisory remarks has been summoned up by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in latest case Government of the Punjab v. Ehsan-ul-Haq Sathi reported as PLD 1986 SC 684 which reads as under--
8. "Advisory remarks are not to be treated as adverse for the purpose of promotion unless it is established that the officer concerned has not paid any heed to the piece of advice given to him and has failed to show any improvement."
8. The result is that since the impugned remarks are of advisory nature, therefore, the present appeal is misconceived. The same is dismissed as incompetent with no order as to costs.