' The appellant Mr. Khalid Siddique, has appealed against the following adverse remarks contained in his A.C.R. For the period from 29-1-1993 to 30-6-1993 recorded by the Countersigning Officer/D.G., E&T (respondent No, 2) communicated to the appellant with letter dated 19-1-1995:-- "PART VI (a) and (b)
' (IV) Meets bare minimum standards (below average) (iii) Not yet fit for promotion.
PART VII (a)
' There have been complaints about registration of Motor Vehicle on fake documents during his tenure. Dubious character. Quite indiscipline."
2. The appellant submitted his representation on 16-2-1995 against the above remarks which was rejected by the Secretary, E & T Department (respondent No,1) vide his order dated 17-7-1995. The instant appeal was filed on 17-8-1995.
3. The appellant has contended that he was never counseled advised or warned before the remarks were recorded/conveyed; that the reporting officer has recorded the remarks without giving any reason for disagreeing with the assessment of the reporting officer and without scoring off any of the columns; that no explanation was called from the appellant on the alleged complaints or about the dubious character of the appellant and that the appellant received appreciation letters from various authorities regarding his good work but this had been ignored by the countersigning officer.
4. Respondent No, 1 in his written objections has contended that the countersigning authority recorded his own assessm ent of the objectionable conduct of the appellant during his charge of the office of Motor Registering Authority in district Lodhran; that the impugned remarks are based on the ground that he registered vehicles on bogus and fake documents during the period under report and which was discovered through scrutiny; that the overall grading in para. VI (a) was given by the countersigning officer regardless of the grading given by the reporting officer; that the counselling is to be given by the reporting officer whereas in this case the remarks were recorded on the basis of complaints against the appellant; that respondent No,2 on receiving complaints also obtained in his capacity as authorized officer permission to proceed against the appellant under the E & D Rules, and that the appellant was found an indiscipline officer in his capacity as Motor Registering Authority, Lodhran. Respondent No,2 in his written objections has raised the same objection as those by respondent No,1 and added that the action against the appellant was started on receipt of verbal complaints where after inquiry was initiated and that the adverse remarks are based on facts.
5. Arguments were heard and record perused. The appellant has strongly contended that no complaint was received in respect of Motor Registering Authority in Lodhran during his tenure and that the report relied upon by the respondents is not based on facts. He has stated that the case regarding registration of bogus documents relates to period from February, 1992 to 13-10-1992 whereas the impugned adverse remarks are claimed to be based on complaints about the bogus registration of vehicles during the period under report; that actually a case for registration of vehicles and bogus documents was initiated on the complaints of respondent No, 2, against the appellant and his clerk which was the subject-matter of a departmental inquiry and culminated in the imposition of minor penalty of A censure against which the appellant filed appeal No, 731 of 1994 which was dismissed and the case is now pending before the honourable Supreme Court, who has granted the leave for appeal and also has issued a stay order against the said minor penalty. This factual position was admitted. The very basis of the impugned remarks is the subject- matter of an inquiry which has still not been finally settled, para. 28 of the instructions about confidential report provides that a copy of the order of punishment should be placed in the C.R.
Dossier of the appellant after he has exhausted all remedies for appeal etc. In the instant case, the matter is still under consideration in the Honorable Supreme Court, respondents cannot even place the order of punishment in the C.R. Dossier of the appellant, muchless recording any remarks relating to or based upon the subject-matter of the inquiry. The contention of the respondents that it is only the Reporting Officer who is to follow the instructions for filling up part. 6 (a) and the countersigning officer is not bound by the same is not tenable. A plain reading of the instructions would show that these are meant for both who while assessing overall grading of the officer should keep in view the overall grading in part-II, III and IV. It is not disputed that the overall grading in part II, III and IV is average but the countersigning officer has neither scored off the same nor followed the instructions and has unauthorized given "below average" remarks in overall grading. For these reasons the impugned remarks given in part-VII(a) cannot be sustained. The impugned remarks given in part-VII (a and b) appear to have been recorded in the light of the remarks given in part- VII, and no specific instances have been given to substantiate the observation that the appellant meets the bare minimum standard.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 17-7-1995 is set aside and the adverse remarks contained in the A.C.R. Of the appellant for the period from 29- 1-1993 to 30-6-1993 and conveyed to the appellant through letter dated 19-1-1995 are expunged.
7. Parties be informed.