IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J. ---This appeal, with the leave -of this Court, is directed against the judgment dated 28-2-1995 by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 40-R of 1995.
2. Noor Elahi, appellant, Head Clerk, Pakistan Air Force Base, Chaklala, hereinafter referred to as P.A.F., was employed as Lower Division Clerk in the P.A.F. In 1965. He was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia in 1989. During his deputation period he was given adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report, hereinafter called the A.C.R., for the period ending December, 1991 in the following terms:- "He is an indisciplined and ill-mannered Head Clerk. His disgraceful conduct caused a lot of embarrassm ent to the entire P.A. F. Community at this base. He was the worst in example."
He made a departmental representation for expunction of the said adverse remarks vide his application, dated 14th September, 1994, inter alia, stating therein that the Reporting Officer, Flight Lieutenant Asim Malik, under whom he had served and who had grievance against him on the following ground.
"At the the of final clearance I demanded my messing dues from Flt. Lt. Abdur Rehman Asim Malik Pak/7657, Mess Secretary Taif, he advised me to put up an application in writing, on this I put up my applications (photostat copies are attached) as Appendices' D' and ' E' . On putting up my applications Flt. Lt. Asim got annoyed and started nursing a grudge against me. He did not pay me my dues in spite of repeated applications and I came back. He also did not sign my motor car gift scheme forms which I have been debited a loss of rupees one lac approximately."
Paragraph 1(g) of the representation also states as under:- "I have put in 30 years of qualifying and spotless service in different capacities, but except the A.C.R.
Of 1991, all my A.C.Rs. Before and after are good and not a single A.C.R. Contains adverse remarks.
One is not supposed to change overnight. This fact also supports my case that the adverse remarks are not based on facts and deserve to be expunged on this ground alone.---
3. The representation of the appellant has not yet been disposed of and is stated to be under active consideration of the departmental authority as stated vide paragraph 4 of the written statement filed by the respondents before the Tribunal.
4. Appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was, however, dismissed being barred by the and also for the reason that no-final rejection order of representation filed by him on 14-9-1994 has yet been passed.
5. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court by order dated 11-12-1995 which reads thus:-- "It is submitted by the petitioner that he is Head Clerk in P.A.F. Sargodha, and has served for thirty- one years but has earned only one adverse annual confidential report in 1991 which was given to him by Reporting Officer, Flight Lieutenant Asim Malik, under whom he served only for one year and who had grievance against him. It is further submitted that this adverse A.C.R. Of 1991 was communicated to him after a delay of nearly four years on 15-8-1994 which was done in violation of paragraphs 15, 16-C and 19 of Confidential Reports, PAF Civilians. It is contended that in the circumstances the said A.C.R. Is liable to be expunged. Leave is granted to consider the contention stated above."
6. The Air Headquarters vide Air Force Order No. 40-27 (hereinafter referred to as Order), dated 31st December, 1991, has issued exhaustive instructions regarding confidential reports specifying therein the procedure to be followed for initiation and completion of such reports. Instructions relating to communication of adverse remarks are contained in paragraphs 15 to 19 of the order which read thus:- "Communication of Adverse Remarks:
15. The communication of remediable/irremediable adverse remarks or showing adverse confidential report to a Government employee concerned is a matter of great importance both in the interest of administrative efficiency as well as of the individual himself. In no case the individuals are to be kept ignorant of the dissatisfaction of their superior officers with regard to discharge of their duties.
16. The procedure for communicating adverse/remediable/irremediable remarks on confidential reports is to be as under:-
(a) The facts of communicating adverse remarks are to be recorded on Confidential Report forms.
(b) Remediable/irremediable remarks on the Confidential Reports are to be conveyed to the Government employees in writing and his signatures obtained. A copy of the same is to be attached to the A.C.R. When despatching it to Air Headquarters.
(c) When any adverse remarks are made in the Confidential Report of any officer, a copy of the whole report should be furnished to him at the earliest opportunity, and in any case within one month from the date the report is countersigned, with a D.O. Letter, a copy of which should be signed and returned by him in acknowledgement of the report. A serious view should be taken of any failure on the part of the officials concerned to furnish a copy of the report containing adverse remarks to the officer reported upon within the stipulated period. Nevertheless, adverse remarks are to be communicated to the officer as soon as possible after raising of the report.
17. The effects of communicating adverse remarks are to be carefully examined, watched and the reporting officers are, when preparing a report of the next year, to state whether the individual concerned has or has not taken steps to rectify the defects to which his attention was drawn previously. Such remarks are also to be communicated to him so that he may know that his efforts to improve have not passed unnoticed. The method of communication in either case is to be as outlined in paragraph 16 above.
18. Copies of letters communicating adverse remarks and subsequent communications are also to be brought to the notice of the reporting officer at the the when reports are due to be filled.
19. Finally it must be reiterated that all faults mentioned in the Confidential Report must be communicated to the Government employee and his signatures as having seen or received be obtained thereof. In case no signatures of the Government employee being reported upon are obtained it will be assumed that these defects have not been shown to him and he has got every right to put up representation against these. "
Reference may also be made to Instruction No. 1 which reads thus:- "The basic objective of rendering confidential reports is to provide permanent record at Air Headquarters in order to obtain a complete picture of an employee's attitude towards service for judging him in the following areas:--
(a) Efficiency, capabilities and qualities.
(b) Suitability for promotion, appointments, deputation abroad and further retention in service. "
7. A perusal of the aforesaid instructions would reveal that in no case an officer reported upon is to be kept ignorant of the dissatisfaction of his superior officer with regard to the discharge of his duties. A Reporting Officer while reporting on his subordinate should be as circumspect as possible.
He must be clear and direct, and not ambiguous or evasive in his remarks and avoid exaggeration and gross under-statement. He should also state with particularity whether any of the defects reported have already been brought to the notice of the officer concerned and also whether he- has or has not taken steps to remedy them.
8. In the case in hand the A.C.R. For the year 1991 was not communicated to the appellant. However, certain promotions of his juniors were made in December, 1992. The appellant, therefore, approached the Tribunal through Appeal No. 220-R of 1994, dated 18-5-1994. In consequence, the Tribunal vide order dated 17-7-1994 directed the respondents to supply copy of the A.C.R. For the year 1991 to the appellant which was duly communicated to him by the departmental authority vide Letter No. AIR HQ/73820/1-M-927/CP (Record), dated 15th August, 1994. The appellant made a representation, as stated above, for expunction of the adverse remarks but his departmental appeal has not yet been disposed of. Clearly, the respondents were wrong in not adhering to the self-explanatory instructions referred above. The adverse report was communicated to the appellant in 1994 only when the Tribunal issued direction in that behalf pursuant to his appeal.
Moreover, the adverse report is vague and sketchy. Refer Government of the Punjab v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi PLD 1986 SC 684, wherein it was observed that a Reporting Officer must observe impartiality, forthrightness and unambiguousness for assessing the performance of the concerned officer. It was further observed, in the said report, as follows:--- "If the reporting officer is partial, his opinion is likely to cause incalculable damage to the officer reported upon, and again if it is ambiguous or carelessly written, it would not represent the result of careful consideration so that if called upon the reporting officer will not be able to justify his opinion and such a lapse would definitely defeat the purpose of the report. Therefore, the merits of the officer reported upon should be judged from an absolutely detached objective point of view and to attain this object the A.C.R. Forms are so designed as to leave a very little scope for sketchy, vague or subjective assessm ent."
In the same report is was also held:-- "The purpose of such remarks is to inform the officer to correct himself and it is only when he fails to do so that it comes in his way for further promotion. "
Reference may also be made to the case of Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore v. Rana Altaf Majid (1994 SCM R 1348), wherein one of us (Ajmal Mian, J., now Honourable Actg. CJ), observed that although evaluation of a subordinate by a Reporting Officer or Countersigning Officer is a matter of subjective assessment and not an objective evaluation and the Service Tribunal or the Court as a rule cannot substitute the view recorded by the Reporting Officer or the Countersigning Officer nor it will interfere with the said evaluation, nevertheless before an officer is condemned, he should be put to notice so that he may have an opportunity to at and conduct himself in a manner which may eliminate the possibility of malicious allegations against him.
9. In the instant case, the appellant admittedly, has earned good reports before 1991 as well as for the subsequent periods. That being so, the Reporting Officer should have stated with particularity as to how all of a sudden there was a change in the conduct and behaviour of the appellant, supported by sufficient material. This has not been done by the Reporting Officer which has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant.
10. In view of the above discussion, it is not necessary to dilate further. Suffice it to say that the appeal is liable to succeed on the short ground that the remarks given in the adverse report suffer from vagueness.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed, the adverse remarks are expunged and the impugned judgment is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.