1988 PLC(CS) 394

1. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ Appellant Bashir Hussain has lodged the present appeal against the adverse remarks given to him in the A.C.Rs. for the years 1983 to 1985. According to him he served the respondents for the last 14/15 years satisfactorily and efficiently. Respondent No. 3 gave him good A. C. Rs. for the above period but respondent No.4 did not agree with him and awarded the bad entries in the said A.C.Rs. to him. His representation failed; hence the present appeal on the ground that the said remarks are against the facts and the principles of natural justice, unjustified and without any firm and solid reasoning.

2. Respondents controverted the allegations and the arguments were heard today, in the light of the same we dispose of the appeal as under:

3. A perusal of the three A.C.Rs. sent to him jointly on 29‑10‑1986 would show that the Reporting Officer gave him good remarks in all the columns. These were either average or good but the Countersigning Officer disagreed with her and in the A.C.R. for the year 1983 he remarked that "the appellant needs to improve the quality of his work. He is not fit for promotion at present". In the A.C.R. for the year, 1984, the Reporting Officer graded him as satisfactory and further remarked that he has started taking interest in his work. The word 'started' appeared for the first time in this A.C.R. presumably keeping in view the adverse remarks of the Countersigning Officer. The Countersigning Officer on the other hand endorsed "Exaggerated assessment. He is not punctual. He is unreliable and takes very little interest in his work". Same was the assessment of the Reporting Officer in the A.C.R. for the year, 1985 which was dissented by the Countersigning Officer. In view of the said remarks by the Countersigning Officer that the appellant was neither punctual, nor reliable, nor taking interest in his work, no departmental action was taken against the appellant. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant was served with any warning/counselling/ advice. There is no complaint from any quarter against the appellant regarding his performance. Besides this under the rules after getting two bad A.C.Rs. either by the Reporting Officer or by the Countersigning Officer, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents that they should manage to transfer the appellant from them. This was not done by the respondents. Last and not the least is the fact that the respondents were duty bound to send the adverse A.C.Rs. to the appellant independently of every year before the other A.C.R. was ready for writing. They failed to follow the rules in letter and spirit. For the Countersigning Officer, if he disagrees with the remarks of a Reporting Officer, he could not simply write that he disagrees with the subordinate Reporting Officer. He must give the examples and the logic behind his own views. A perusal of the A.C.Rs. for the said three years would show that the Countersigning Officer failed to give the reasoning of his disagreement with the Reporting Officer.

4. So far as the limitation in filing the present appeal is concerned,! appellant has given the application for the condonation of delay on, the ground that the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal was barred in adjudicating upon the vires of the A.C.Rs. To us this is a good and logical explanation because the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the question of adverse entries in the A.C.R. was not in existence and this right was granted to an aggrieved person through the judgments of the superior Courts. The delay caused in filing the appeal in the Tribunal is hereby condoned.

5. On the basis of the above reasoning we are constrained to accept the present appeal, by setting aside the Impugned order and direct that the adverse remarks given to the appellant in the A.C.Rs. for the years 1983 to 1985 be expunged, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room.

6. S. Q. /76/Sr.N Appeal accepted.