ALTAF MAJID Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE

CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER) ‑‑ By D.O. Letter No. 4080/Ext 3, dated 2‑4‑1989, the following adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant from his performance evaluation report for the period from 14‑9‑1988 to 31‑12‑1988, during which he had been serving as S.S.P. Gujranwala:

" Part‑VI Cc Integrity

Honest "No"

Part‑VII(a) "The officer did not enjoy a good reputation for honesty. Used extra departmental pressure for his postings. This is unbecoming of a direct P.S.P. Officer."

2. On 2‑9‑1990, he filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, for the expunction of adverse remarks, after he was informed try letter dated 11‑4‑1990 endorsed to him by the office of I.‑G. Police Punjab, Lahore on 6‑8‑1990 that his representation dated 13‑6‑1989, had been considered and rejected by the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab.

3. The appellant's case in brief is that the adverse observations made in his performance evaluation report are factually incorrect and that they have been made in disregard of the relevant instructions which serve as Guide to Performance Evaluation. It was pleaded, that the adverse remarks were made by the Countersigning Officer irrespective of the fact that A‑I gradation was given to him by the Reporting Officer, who in his, capacity as Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Gujranwala had the opportunity of watching his performance more closely than the Countersigning Officer. It was pleaded that no specific instance has been quoted as basis for the adverse observations regarding the appellant's integrity. He enjoyed a good reputation throughout his service and there had never been any complaint against him during the period under report.

4. The defence set up by the respondent in different written statements is that the adverse observations against the appellant are factually correct and based on certain complaints and documents which came to the notice of the Countersigning Officer. It was denied that any violation of the relevant instructions was involved either in making the adverse observations or their communication.

5. Before addressing ourselves to the points involved for determination, we consider worthwhile to emphasize the importance of the evaluation reports in the light of relevant instructions. The purpose is to underline the fact that we have been influenced by these instructions in deciding the points involved in the matter. Para 1.1 of the Guide to Performance Evaluation Reports lays down 'that confidential reports rendered by Reporting Officers, on the performance of officials serving under them constitute the most important basis of evaluation. The character roll dossier maintained for the purpose contains a systematically prepared and carefully assembled performance record of the official concerned. At another place in para 1.3 it has been provided that since the confidential reports constitute an aid to selection for training, appointments, transfers, promotions, confirmations or screening of officials, it is essential that they are written most carefully. In para 2.4 it is laid down that confidential reports on officers are of the greatest importance when appointments or promotions have to be made and that the necessity of preparing these reports with the utmost care cannot therefore be over emphasised. Yet again, in para 2.1 we see the provision that on account of the importance of these reports, the opinion expressed should represent, the result of careful consideration and objective assessment so that if called upon the Reporting Officer could justify the assessment of his subordinate.

6. We have given due consideration to the adverse observations in the light of relevant instructions and we are obliged to observe that some of them do not appear to have been strictly observed. It is provided in para. 3.1(iv)(a) of the Guide that when 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 the officer in acknowledgment of the report. It is further laid down that 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.

7. These instructions do not, however, appear to have been complied in this case. There is no indication in D.O. letter dated 2‑4‑1989, that the whole report was communicated to the appellant. Although he has not mentioned it as a ground for reliance either in his representation dated 13‑6‑1989 or in the grounds of appeal, we are inclined to take notice of this fact because the communication of adverse remarks is of a great importance both in the interest of the efficiency of the administration and of the officers of the Government themselves. It has, therefore, been repeatedly laid down that when any adverse remark is made, the whole report should be furnished to the concerned officer. The purpose is not only to enable him to make an effective representation, but also to put him in a position to read the adverse observations in the context of the whole report. Prudence would dictate that an officer should be informed as soon as possible as to what is the opinion of his superior officers about his performance. If he considers the adverse remarks in the light of other assessment, he can be in a better position to take steps to improve himself. Further, it is necessary also because of the considerations that it is the responsibility of the Reporting Officer to watch the effect of communication of adverse entries when he is going to prepare a report for the next year.

8. It may be mentioned that during the course of arguments it was contended by the representative of the respondents that a copy of the entire report was furnished to the appellant. But his counsel denied the correctness of this assertion. As already mentioned before, letter dated 2‑4‑1989 communicating the adverse remarks does not give any indication of the fact that a copy of whole report was furnished to the appellant. This was in clear disregard of the relevant instruction of paras. 3.1 and 3.3 of the Guide; which we say irrespective of the fact that the grounds of appeal do give us an indication that the whole report might have come to the appellant's notice through some other source.

9. Reference may also be made to the instruction, in para 2.5 (iii) of the Guide which provide that the assessments recorded in different parts of the ACR Form should be in conformity with each other. Even from certain other instructions, it can be spelled out that the entries in the report should not be inconsistent and self‑contradictory. In the present case, however, we find that the adverse remarks made by the Countersigning Officer are not consistent with certain other entries made in part VI of the report. As we see from the entries of part VI(c) , the appellant has not been reported to be an honest officer. Even the remarks in Part VII recorded by him are that he does not enjoy a good reputation for honesty and he used extra departmental pressure for his posting which is unbecoming of a P.S.P. Officer. In part VI(b), however, he has reported that he is fit for promotion on his turn. In part VI(a) he has expressed the opinion that he is a good officer. This opinion is clearly inconsistent with what he has said in part VI(c) and Part VII of the report. We fail to understand how a dishonest officer can be good and fit for promotion on his turn, all at the same time.

10. We also see from the relevant instructions that assessment in the annual confidential report should be confined to the work done by the officer reported upon during the period covered by the report. The instructions do not appear to have been kept in mind in the present case. As we see from the written statement filed by the Inspector‑General of Police (respondent No. 1), while expressing his opinion he seems to have been influenced by the reports made against the appellant during his posting as S.P. Khanewal. Regardless of whether those reports were correct or otherwise, what is important is that the evaluation cannot, under the circumstances, be said to have been confined to the period under report which was from 14‑9‑1988 to 31‑12‑1988 when the appellant was serving as S.S.P. Gujranwala. There is nothing in the respondents' pleadings to show that there was any complaint against him during that period.

11. It will be in point to make a reference to respondent No. 1's comments he furnished to the Chief Secretary in connection with the appellant's representation for expunction of adverse remarks. In these comments he said that remarks about the appellant "covered the whole year of 1988 and not just the few months that he spent at Gujranwala" and that "for a major part of the year the officer was posted as S.P. Khanewal". Here again we feel inclined to observe that this was in disregard of the relevant instructions on the subject of Annual Confidential Reports. When questioned during the course of arguments, we were informed by the representative of the respondent No. 2 that the appellant's annual confidential report for the period of his posting as S.P. Khanewal from 1‑1‑1988 to 13‑9‑1988, had not yet been recorded. This would mean that the Countersigning Officer expressed himself about his performance during the period of his stay as S.P. Khanewal without initiation of the report by his immediate officer. This was not in accordance with the instructions which lay down that the Countersigning Officer should weigh the remarks of the Reporting Officer against his personal knowledge of the officer being reported upon: comparing him with the other officers of the same grade working under different Reporting Officers and then give his overall assessment in Part VI and remarks in para 3(a) of Part III of the report. We are of the view that the assessment of the immediate superior officer should be there to serve as a basis for the evaluation of the Countersigning Officer. It may be conceded that he can have his own independent view about the integrity of an officer. But then there is a method for its expression. Instead of embarking upon the evaluation of his work as S.P. Khanewal in the manner in which it has been done in this case, the Countersigning Officer should have contrived the initiation of the report by the concerned officer. Whosoever was at fault in not initiating the report for a major part of the year 1988 when the appellant worked as S.P. Khanewal, the fact remains that the period under report was with regard to his stay as S.P. Gujranwala. The Countersigning officer's adverse remarks could have been in place only when he had been concerned with the evaluation of his work as S.S.P. Khanewal for the period from 1‑8‑1988 to 13‑9‑1988.

12. We might as well mention that during the course of arguments, the Provincial Government's representative Sh. Afzaal Elahi, Section Officer placed on record copies of two letters at our instance. By letter dated 14‑4‑1991, the appellant was asked to intimate whether blank ACR Forms had been sent to the Reporting Officer. On 17‑5‑1992 a letter was addressed to the Deputy Director, Provincial Control Room with‑ the request that the appellant's ACR for the period from 1‑1‑1988 to 13‑9‑1988 may be furnished without further delay. It was contended that it was the appellant's duty to provide the Reporting Officer with necessary entries in Part I of the form. It seems to be rather strange that the ACR of an officer is not recorded merely because he fails to furnish the necessary form which is because of the consideration that it can always be provided by the Establishment. We would go to the extent of saying that it should rather be so provided, simply because of the reason that they are conversant with necessary particulars to be put in Part I of the Form. Anyway, whosoever is responsible, the fact remains that report for the period from 1‑1‑1988 to 13‑9‑1988 was never initiated, to create an occasion for the Countersigning Officer to express himself about the appellant's performance during his stay as S.P. Khanewal.

13. The aforementioned considerations apart, we may advert to the respondents' pleadings in support of the adverse remarks. It has been averred that the assessment of respondent No. 1 was based on various written complaints, resolutions and press clippings received from "higher formations". A resolution passed by the District Bar Association on 23‑5‑1988, levelled serious allegations about the appellant's integrity. The Bar Association demanded an inquiry against the appellant in consequence of a meeting on 25‑5‑1988. Further, on 26‑5‑1988, the citizens of Khanewal held a meeting and levelled serious allegations against the appellant, like "patronizing the drug traffickers of the area", We will avoid any opinion on whether the allegations made in these documents were factually correct or otherwise. What we do say is that the seriousness of allegations in these resolutions called for a regular inquiry where the appellant could either have been condemned or exonerated. Without definite findings of the Inquiry Officer, the allegations made in the resolutions should not have been allowed to influence the concerned officer to an adverse opinion. As we see from his comments, such an inquiry was held on his order. He stated in his comments that he "did not exactly recall the verdict given by the Inquiry Officer, but it did not absolve the officer complained, against though the allegations could not be proved beyond doubt". We feel that the report of the Inquiry Officer, should in all fairness, have been placed on record to enable us to know as to what were his findings; moreso in view of the aforementioned comments that the appellant was not absolved, although the allegations could not be proved beyond doubt. This has not been done and the inference has to be in the appellant's favour. We are of the view that when an inquiry was held into the matter, there is no reason why it should not have been placed on record to enable us to know what was the correct position.

14. Another instruction is that the Reporting Officer is expected to counsel the officer being reported upon, about his weak points and advise him how to improve and that adverse remarks should ordinarily be recorded when the officer fails to improve despite counselling. In the present case, however, there is nothing in writing to show that such counselling was ever administered to the appellant. Like other instructions, this one is also very important and the purpose to be served is that the concerned officer should not only be guided With appropriate advice but also be given an opportunity to improve himself before resort is made to adverse entries in his confidential report. In view of the importance of this instruction the Reporting Officer, or for that matter the Countersigning Officer, should not only impart appropriate advice, but also keep a record of such an advice having been duly administered.

15. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the adverse remarks in this case have been recorded in disregard of the relevant instructions. They are accordingly expunged from the appellant's Annual Confidential Report concerned, in acceptance of the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.

A.A./750/Sr.F Appeal accepted.