SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUI Versus AGRONOMIST (LIVESTOCK), AYUB AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD

ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑ The appellant, Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqi, while posted as Assistant Dairy Technologist in the Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad was given the following adverse remarks by respondent No. 1 in his Confidential Report for the year 1982 which were also endorsed by respondent No. 2:

" Part II

(4) Adaptability Below Average.

Part ‑ V

Pen‑picture

Very little aptitude for research work.

2. His departmental representation for the expunction of the impugned remarks having failed, the appellant has now approached this Tribunal with this appeal.

3. The appellant's claim that he "had been discharging his official duties with due care, caution and up to the best abilities and capabilities" has not been controverted either by the Reporting Officer or the respondent department. They have also not refuted the appellant's assertion that he was never called upon "to explain his position on the so‑called allegations". The appellant has contended that the expression 'Adaptability: below average' was a very vague term and no specific example or incident has been cited by the Reporting Officer to justify these remarks.

4. Regarding the observations of the Reporting Officer that the appellant had "very little aptitude for research work" the latter has explained that he had a number of research papers to his credit which have been published in journals of international repute.

5. The Reporting Officer who has since retired, has now contradicted his own assessment and has clearly admitted that "the appellant has inborn aptitude for research work which is amply proved by his submission". His successor‑in‑office too has reported that "the officer had the aptitude for the research". The Reporting Officer has also recommended that "the remarks were added to get improvement in his work and conduct. Now he has shown marked improvement therefore the remarks may kindly be expunged now". These observations of the Reporting Officer would mean that the impugned remarks were meant to be only advisory. The respondents have also not denied the contention of the appellant that these remarks were conveyed to him after a delay of over three years.

6. As the respondent department itself did not oppose the appeal, the learned District Attorney also did not press for its dismissal. Since the impugned remarks were given with the avowed objective of achieving improvement in the conduct and performance of the appellant and as the Reporting Officer has himself noticed `marked improvement', we find no justification to sustain them and the same are hereby expunged. There are no orders as to costs.

H.B.T./438/Sr.P Appeal allowed.