AKHTAR HASSAN (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, Excise and Taxation Inspector, Vehari, was recorded to be 'below average' and "not a willing worker" in his A.C.R. for the financial year 1987-88. He claimed that these were the first ever remarks recorded during his entire 15 years long career. He sought their expunction but respondent No, 3 rejected his representation vide his order dated 8-7-1991 (Annexure C) and hence the instant appeal.
2. It was urged, Firstly: that the Reporting Officer/respondent No, 1 had strained relations with the appellant; Secondly: that he got him transferred from Lahore to Vehari where he adjudged him 'below average' in all columns without having any material to support them; Thirdly: that his entire career of 15 years being rather meritorious, it was not believable that he could suddenly slump down drastically so as to be rated "below average" in all columns in a sweeping manner; Fourthly: that though he was "a strong believer of Islam" yet he was adjudged below average even in this matter; Fifthly: that he effected 87% recoveries as against the target of 90% fixed for the period under report so that the little shortfall was in-consequential; Sixthly: that in the year 1977-78, he was able to achieve 100% of the target whereupon a cash award of Rs,400 was granted to him; Seventhly: that he was never administered any warning or counselling during the year in relation to his performance.
Eighthly: that under the instructions, the A.C.R. has to be related to a calendar year as distinguished from a financial year and that accordingly there should have been two separate reports; and Lastly: that his record both prior to and after the impugned report was unblemished, meaning thereby that it was not based on a rational appreciation of his performance.
3. In their written objections the respondents contested the appeal by maintaining that the remarks correctly reflected performance of the appellant and that there was nothing mala fide in so assessing him. They maintained that the A.C.R. had to relate to the financial year as per instructions of the Government on the point. They, however, admitted that though he had achieved 87% of the target of recoveries yet he left behind sufficient arrears which too should have been recovered as a matter of course. Further, his claim that his entire service record was satisfactory, was not admitted to be correct meaning thereby that he had earned some adverse entries, but strangely enough, none was specifically pointed out. Lastly it was indicated that due to his unsatisfactory performance during the year 1987-88, his annual increment was stopped but the same was challenged in a Departmental appeal.
4. Arguments were heard at length. Although respondent No,3/Director-General disclosed in his written objections that the appellant had earned adverse reports for the period from 1-7-1979 to 30-6-1980, 15-3-1986 to 30-6-1986, 1-7-1986 to 25-4-1987, and 26-4-1987 to 30-6-1987, yet he did not assert what precisely those remarks were, and if those had really been communicated to the appellant. Consequently the latter's contention that his record before and after the impugned entries, was satisfactory, appeared to be correct. It was for the respondents to have annexed these remarks and further prove the fact that those were not only communicated to the appellant but also acknowledged by him. In the absence of any evidence to prove these points it was not easy to accept the respondents plea that the appellant had earned adverse entries during those years.
Conversely he was able to get a cash award and rightly claimed that achieving 87% of the fixed target of 90% recoveries was by no means an insignificant performance. The shortfall of only 3 per cent. was quite negligible and assessing it as something unsatisfactory, was indeed taking a lope- sided view of his work. Still further, rating him "below average" in a whole sale manner in all the columns relevant or not, revealed an attempt on the part of the Reporting Officer of giving vent to his feelings not based on objective appreciation of his performance.
5. Before giving adverse entries, counseling at proper times was essential. 1988 PLC (C.S.) 394 (Bashir Hussain v. Director-General, Population Welfare Directorate, Government of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others) can be safely cited in support of this point. The record reveals that no such counseling was made and the appellant was taken by surprise. The instructions on the point make it obligatory that it might be brought to the notice of the officer concerned at proper time that his performance lacked something which he might remove before the year closes up. No document was appended to establish that this requirement was adequately met by the respondents. Its absence evidently makes the remarks untenable. Similarly, the A.C.R. should have been made for a calendar year. This was the requirement of the instructions of the Government. The Excise and Taxation Department appears to have adopted the financial year on their own, without getting it approved from the Services General Administration and Information Department which was the Department concerned to formulate rules pertaining to writing of the confidential reports.
6. The learned District Attorney in his own way supported the adverse remarks claiming that those were subscribed to by all the three respondents and hence could not be assumed to be perfunctory.
7. Be that as it may, the rule of caution impinge upon the need to forewarn the Officer reported upon to take care of his performance. Obviously, in the absence of such a timely warning, he could not be condemned at the fag-end of the year. In this case the appellant worked during the entire year under the same Reporting Officer who should have been watchful to notice short comings in his duties and place it on the record for the purpose of substantiating his remarks recorded at the end of the year. No reason was advanced for this omission and the corollary was that there was nothing to point out to the appellant in the course of year. Besides. 87% recoveries as against the target of 90% could not be treated as something below average. It is rather on the high side. The point was not properly appreciated presumably because the Reporting Officer did not assess in an objective manner. Next, there should have been strong reasons for a sudden fall in performance of the appellant. None of the sort was brought to lime-light and hence the remarks were open to exception.
8. For all these reasons the appeal is allowed and the impugned remarks are expunged.