1. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The appellant with the leave of this Court has challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby his appeal for quashment of adverse entries in his ACR for the year 1990 was dismissed. There was a difference of opinion and the majority view of the Tribunal was against the appellant. The appellant at the relevant the was a Works Manager (Civil)
2. POF. For the year 1981 the following advisory remarks were communicated to him: "The following advisory remarks have been endorsed in your A.C.R. For the year 1981:---
(a) By Mr. Haider Agha. Chief Supdt./POF Sahiwal: "Mr. Salahuddin should ckeck up the quality of work frequently. Leaving the entire responsibility of junior staff is not enough. "
(b) By Mr. Mahmood Aslam, C.R/Works: "An average officer who needs further experience in administration and executive fields to enable himself to be considered for further promotion."
(c) By Mr. F.R. Siddigi, P.T.S.: "The quality of Civil Work being executed in Sanjwal is far from satisfactory. This has been pointed out to the officer."
(d) By Maj.-Gen. Talat Masood, Chairman, POF Board: "An average performance. Needs to take the advice of his Reporting Officers seriously."
3. For the year 1983 the following advisory remarks were communicated:--- "The following advisory remarks have been endorsed in your A.C.R for the year 1983:---
(a) BY Mr. Haider Agha, M.D/POF. Saniwal: "Mr. Salahuddin should spend more the on site. He is also advised to take suitable measures to improve the quality of Civil Work. I can accept him in POF Sanjwal, if he can shake of his lethargy."
(b) By Maj. Gen. Talat Masood, Chairman, POF Board:" Mr. Salahuddin possesses adequate professional qualifications and has a fair understanding of technical matters. He however needs to be more dedicated and take his profession seriously."
4. The remarks for the years 1988 and 1989 were communicated as follows:--- 1988
(a) By Mr. M. Shafi Talib, S.E./CIVIL: "The officer has not much utility, caliber and capacity to plan and handle the work as demanded by the specifications, rules and conditions pertaining to civil engineering works. Due to his negligence others have to face difficulties, because he does not take proper action at the right the. He expects others to point out defects in the work supervised by him.
5. He does not organise and use staff, other resources effectively. He is advised to make more efforts to become more effective and behave well with his subordinate. "
(b) By Brig. Abdul Majid Khan. D.O.P.: "The officer had consistently shown poor results in the execution of works handled by him. In hospital doors of poor quality were allowed to be installed by the contractor. His presence at works was also not noticeable. As such the advice given by SE/Wah Works is quite in order."
(c) Br Mai.-Gen. Sabeeh Qamar-uz-Zaman, Chairman, POF Board "I agree with D.O.P."
6. 1989
(a) By Mr. M. Afzal Janiua. C.E./Works.: "Mr. Salahuddin Ahmad, has not been effective in execution of works and their financial control. He is not quality conscious. He could not work devotedly due to bad health."
(b) By Brig. Abdul Samad Khan. Director of Projects "I concur. The officer has been sick for most of the the."
(c) By Mai.-Gen. Sabeeh Qamar-uz-Zaman, Chairman POF Board.
7. "I agree with CEW and DOP. "
8. The report for the year 19,90 was communicated as follows:--- "REMARKS BY REPORTING OFFICER: He is facing health problems for which he remains under treatment of and on. REMARKS BY SUPERIOR REPORTING OFFICER:
(i) The output of the officer is inadequate and not up to the required standard in quality.
(ii) Not yet fit for promotion.
9. REMARKS BY NEXT SUPERIOR OFFICER:
(i) The officer is generally sick. I agree with the remarks at Parts V and VII.
(ii) Not yet for promotion.
10. REMARKS BY COUNTERSI NCING OFFICER: I agree with SRO and NSR6"
11. As regards remarks for the years 1981 and 1983, as they were advisory in nature, no appeal was filed by the appellant. However, he challenged the adverse remarks made for the years 1988 and 1989.
12. In Appeal No. 405(R)/92 which was decided and communicated by letter dated 2-3-1993, adverse A.C.Rs for 1988 and 1989 were declared to be invalid and incompetent and they were ordered not to be placed on the appellant's service record and the department was directed to issue necessary orders in that behalf. It seems that before this appeal was heard and decided, the Tribunal heard the appeal filed against the adverse remarks recorded for the year 1990. The appellant stated that he had requested the Tribunal to hear the appeal relating to the years 1988 and 1989 first or to consolidate both the appeals and hear them together but such request was not acceded to and the appeal relating to the year 1990 was decided by the impugned judgment before the appeal relating to the years 1988 and 1989 was decided. In such cases where several A.C.Rs. For different years have been challenged and there seems to be connection and relevance among them, it is always proper and advisable to hear all of them together and if it is not possible then at least appeal against A.C.R. Of the earlier year should be heard first because at times it happens that subsequent A.C.Rs. Are influenced and are based on earlier one. Therefore the Tribunal should adopt a procedure which is conducive to the interest of justice.
13. Now coming to the impugned judgment, there is a difference of opinion between the Members. Mr. Misbahullah Khan, the learned Member was of the view that appeal should be allowed and he had given his reasons as follows:--- "After having heard both the parties and gone through the record we find that the appellant has availed 16 days leave on medical ground and not 63 days as has been given by the respondents, which is very normal during one calendar year. In view of Category ' A' grading of the appellant in medical reports, the question of health problem and 'often remaining under treatment' does not arise and the remarks by the reporting officer and next superior officer on this score, are indeed unjustified. We find that no proper written counselling has ever been served upon the appellant to improve his performance. The departmental representative has revealed that the appellant was advised to improve the quality of project estimates, whereas the adverse remarks are not to this effect. We also find that in Part VI(a) of the ACR in ' overall grading' the appellant has been graded to 'equal the majority of officers' and all the superior officers have agreed to it. In Part VI (b) they have declared the appellant 'unfit for promotion'. This position is contradictory and is like blowing hot and cold the same the."
14. Another learned Member Ch. Hasan Nawaz expressed different view and he referred to all the A.C.Rs for the years 1981, 1983, 1988 and 1989 and while dealing with the A.C.R. For the year 1990 observed as follows:--- "The reports of the previous years show that his performance has never been satisfactory. Time and again it was reported by his superior officers that the quality of his work left so much to be desired and that there was room for improvement. In view of these adverse reports, particularly those regarding the years 1988 and 1989, no further counselling was required to justify the adverse remarks of the year 1990. He had sufficient notice of the fact that his superior officers were not happy with his work and there is no reason why he should not have made necessary improvements. The adverse reports of the previous years duly communicated to him, were sufficient to put him on his guard to bring about an improvement in his work. He seems to have failed to do the needful."
15. It was further observed:--- "In Part V of the report, it has been observed that 'he is facing health problems, for which he remains under treatment of and on'. It is alleged that these remarks are factually incorrect because according to his annual medical examination report, his health has been rated as 'Good'. I do not find it possible to agree. According to his leave record, as pleaded by the respondents, he availed sixty-three days' leave during the year 1990 on account of sickness. During the course of arguments, however, it was found that he availed of 16 days' leave on medical grounds. Even if it be so, it cannot be said that the report is factually incorrect. There is nothing wrong with the remarks that he is facing health problems and that he occasionally remained under treatment. This will be more so in view of the report regarding the year 1989 where it was said that ' he could not work devotedly due to bad health'. "
16. The Chairman agreed with the opinion of learned Member Ch. Hasan Nawaz and dismissed the appeal.
17. From the above fact it emerges that the Tribunal committed an error in not hearing both the appeals together or hearing the appeal for the years 1988 and 1989 after the appeal for the year 1990. In fact all these appeals should have been consolidated to avoid confusion and contradiction. From the observations of the majority view, it is clear that it is based and influenced by the ACR for, the years 1988 and 1989 which were expunged by the Tribunal though after the decision made in the appeal in respect of the year 1990. The Government has not filed any appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal expunging the remarks for the years 1988 and 1989 and, therefore, notice of this fact has to be taken while deciding the present appeal. As the majority view had relied upon the ACRs for the years 1988 and 1989 which no longer stand their view cannot be justified or upheld. The appellant has further contended that the majority view has treated remarks for the years 1981 and 1983 as adverse but as is obvious they were advisory in nature and could not be treated as adverse. The contention is correct. The appellant furtner contended that even on factual ground the Tribunal had erred as according to the respondents, the appellant had availed 63 days' leave on medical ground but actually it turned out only 16 days. The majority view seems to hold that medical leave of 16 days was sufficient, to give adverse remark which is unreasonable and cannot be justified by any logic or principle governing the recording of A.C.R. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal is set aside. The impugned remarks for the year 1990 are expunged and the judgment of learned Member Misbahullah Khan is upheld.