' The appellant was communicated following adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer vide letter, dated 15-5-1996 pertaining to the period from 2-7-1993 to 31-12-1993 issued by the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore:-- {{TABLE}} Part-VI (A) Overall grading Equal to majority - of officers (Average)
(8) Fitness for promotion Not yet fit for promotion.
(C) Intergrity No remarks about integrity. Part-VII A) Remarsk of C/signing Is an average officer officer who lacks effective control. {{TABLE}}
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel' for the appellant that the reporting officer has appraised the working of the appellant accurately and has given him invariably "A" reports. He has been described as an honest officer but the Countersigning Officer has described him as reported above; that the remarks were appended by the Countersigning Officer on 5-9-1995 i,e, after one year and 9 months and it appears that the Countersigning Officer had not been able to retain in his memory the commendable work done by him; that the remarks are absolutely unjustified and show that the Countersigning officer has not been able to record any instance of laxity of control on the part of the appellant. It was the reporting officer who was the immediate supervisory officer of the appellant and had been watching/overseeing his work and had commended his performance. The Countersigning officer has not claimed that there has been any complaint whatsoever against the work and conduct of the appellant. As such, the remarks are absolutely unfounded and baseless and cannot be sustained.
3. The respondents have defended the remarks on the ground that it was an honest and fair assessm ent of the senior officer and the Countersigning Officer had no personal prejudice against him, hence there is nothing on record justifying expunction of the remarks.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the contents in the Memo. Of Appeal and has urged that this is for the first time the appellant has been communicated adverse remarks and those do not pertain to his integrity rather some laxity in respect of control over the subordinate staff; that the officer has been honest and fair and his working has been commended by his senior officer throughout his service career spread over more than two decades and one could not become slack all of a sudden.
5. The learned District Attorney on the other hand has defended the remarks.
6. Arguments have been heard and record has been gone through.
7. A perusal of the entire confidential record of the appellant indeed shows and shows beyond any doubt that the officer has good service record. He has invariably earned good reports and this is for the first time that the Countersigning Officer has pointed out his slackness in effectively controlling the establishment whereas the immediate reporting officer has applauded and appreciated his work. Had the Countersigning officer recorded the remarks soon after the period reported upon in accordance with the instruction on the subject, it would have certainly carried weight. Now the recording of remarks after one year and 9 months makes the situation otherwise.
There is every possibility of the officer having forgotten the real position. Even otherwise an officer who had ever rendered commendable performance cannot come slack all of a sudden in a period of 6 months.
' In this view of the matter, there seems to be no justification for the adverse remarks. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the impugned adverse remarks are ordered to be expunged.