' The appellant Mr. Khalid Siddique, Excise and Taxation Officer has appealed against following adverse remarks contained in his A.C.R. For the period from 1-7-1990 to 30-6-1991 conveyed through letter dated 2-1-1993:--
(i) Below average against column No, 4 under part II of the report.
(ii) Below average against columns Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 13 under Part III of the report.
(iii) Below average against columns Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 under Part IV of the report.
PART V
(a) Pen Picture ' A man with his very rigid and unpleasing manners. Does not bother about any advice given to from any quarters. A man who takes no pains, at all, in his job or in his demeanour. Quite adopt at annoying his superiors by sheer inefficiency, disinterest and disobedience.
' H e was inching of the Training Cell He was constant source of annoyanace He was not pushed even when a course was going on.
' The courses that had to be conducted were eloquent of his disinterest.
PART VI
(a) (iv) Meets bare minimum standards. (Below average).
(b) (iii) Not yet fit for promotion."
2. The appellant filed a representation against the above remarks on 12-1993 which was rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary (respondent No,1) vide his order dated 28-7-1994.
3. The appellant has contended that the Additional D.-G., Excise and Taxation (respondent No,3) recorded the impugned remarks without any basis and the countersigning officer/Secretary, E&T Department (respondent No, 2) endorsed the same without applying his mind independently; that the appellant was posted as E.T.O. Training Cell during period under report and was responsible for coordinating the training programmer and no complaint was received in respect of the said assignment; that the reporting officer (respondent No,3) in fact recorded his appreciation of the work by the appellant in the Training Cell; that the impugned remarks have not been substantiated with reference to any specific instance and, therefore, based on conjecture and surmises; that the report for the period in question contained self-contradictory remarks; that the appellant was never counseled verbally or in writing on any aspect of working or personality; that the element of extremeness reflected in the impugned remarks is mala fide.
4. Respondent No,3 who was the reporting officer has stated in the written objections that no complaint was received against the appellant during the period under report but the impugned remarks were recorded keeping in view his general behavior; that the appellant has peculiar traits which have, always emerged as big impediments in formation of any good opinion about his person or conduct; that the remarks were made to depict the inherent qualities of the appellant although he is a mature and balanced person; that no instance of inefficiency was quoted in the A.C.R. Nor any explanation was called from him. Respondent No,1 in his written objections has contended that there is no contradiction in the adverse remarks; that both the reporting officer and the countersigning officer have recorded their assessment in their best judgment and that the question of counseling in writing does not arise as the appellant was working under the direct supervision of the reporting officer. Respondent No,2 has made the same contentions in his written objections as those by respondent No, l.
5. Arguments were heard and record perused. Internal contradiction in the report is quite evident inasmuch as on the one hand, he has been assessed a mature and balanced person and on the other, a number of remarks elsewhere in the report purport to depict the appellant as if he is not mature and balanced. He has been assessed as average by the reporting officer, in his ability to take decisions, and yet assessed as below average in acceptance of responsibilities. He is shown to annoy his superior by sheer inefficiency, disinterest and disobedience and found to be constant source of annoyance. These remarks surely require to be backed with specific instances. No material was brought on record to substantiate such extreme remarks about an otherwise mature and balanced person. Again, it is reported that he annoyed the superiors by sheer inefficiency and yet the reporting officer stated in the written objections by himself--that no instance of inefficiency was quoted in the A.C.R. Nor any explanation of the appellant was called. This contradiction goes unexplained. Still further, the overall grading does not reflect the overall grading of Parts II, III and IV inasmuch as the overall grading in Part II is average, that of Part III has been incorrectly shown as below average as only six out of 12 grading were shown as below average, and grading in part IV are equal for average and below average and in spite of that, the overall grading in part-VI has been given "below average" which is contrary to the instructions given in the beginning of part-VI itself. The remarks are no doubt extreme. As such general remarks would raise questions about whether the department took any action, required under the rules, against the person for being so deficient in a number of areas of work and conduct. These questions were never answered. It is unlikely that the appellant acquired these negative qualities suddenly during his tenure as E.T.O.
Training Cell. The alleged indiscipline and affront with the superior authorities certainly called for more action than merely recording adverse remarks. No such action was reported to have been initiated. The generality and the extremeness of the remarks in the absence of any supporting material or specific instance is not justified, and would, in fact, be counter-productive for the purpose for which adverse remarks are communicated. The appellant is probably unaware of the details of what appears to be a "charge-sheet" rather than an objective assessment of his work and conduct. The plea of mala fide taken by the appellant, though not substantiated, has not been contradicted. The countersigning officer and the appellate authority have both failed to notice the points made above.
6. In the light of the foregoing, no reason exists to sustain the impugned remarks. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 28-7-1994 is set aside and the impugned remarks contained in the A.C.R. Of the appellant for the period from 1-7-1990 to 30-6-1991 conveyed to him through order dated 2-1-1993 are expunged.
7. Parties are informed.