SHAHZADO LANGAH Versus SECRETARY, LABOUR AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI
A. RASHID KHAN SHERWANI (MEMBER).‑‑‑ Writing of adverse remarks in the appellant's ACRs for the years 1987 and 1988 and communicating them vide Government of Sindh, Labour and Transport Department, letter No. Lab(1)3:/59/83‑II, dated December, 1991, prompted the appellant to rile an appeal to respondent No. 1 requesting him for their expunction, and having received no reply from him approached this Tribunal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, within 30 days after the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days of filing the appeal.
2. The appellant joined service on 19‑5‑1983 as Assistant Director (Research) in the Directorate of Manpower and Training, Sindh. In 1987 and 1988 when he got the adverse remarks, he was still working in the same capacity. The adverse remarks given to him during this period are summarised as follows:‑‑
1987
In parts II, III, IV and VI of the Report, he is shown below average He was also considered "Unlikely to progress further"
In part V, the remarks are as under:‑‑
1. ???????? Pen‑picture: ????????????????????????????????????????? Has shown no improvement in his approach
??????????????????????? towards official assignment. Tries to shirk
??????????????????????? responsibilities.
2. ???????? Counselling: ???????????????????????????????????????? Has been advised to make efforts to
??????????????????????? improve but of no result.
3. ???????? Assessment of ????????????????????????????????????? Did not perform all the duties as indicated
??????????? performance ???????????????????????????????????????? against No. 9 of Part‑1.
The remarks of the Countersigning Officer are as under:‑‑
"Entirely agree with the assessment of reporting officer. He was given a chance to work under different officers. All of them tried to motivate and guide him but due to indifferent attitude he could not show any sign of improvement."
1988
The trend is the same as remarked in the Report of 1987. The variations are, however, as under:
"Part V
1. ???????? Pen‑picture: ????????????????????????????????????????? A below average officer, does not take
??????????????????????? interest in his job. Not punctual in attending
??????????????????????? office. Has no capacity to improve.
2. ???????? Counselling: ????????????????????????????????????????? Advised on working procedure but did not
??????????????????????? show any improvement.
3. ???????? Assessment of ????????????????????????????????????? His overall performance has been assessed
??????????? performance ???????????????????????????????????????? as unsatisfactory. His contribution to the
??????????????????????? overall performance of this office is
??????????????????????? negligible. Instead of contributing, he
??????????????????????? creates hindrances in the smooth working of
??????????????????????? this office:"
The remarks of the countersigning officer are as under:‑‑
Entirely in agreement with the reporting officer. There are no two opinions that his performance is nil. A show‑cause notice for committing serious misconduct was issued to him: His explanation was found unsatisfactory and Secretary Labour and Co‑operation taking a lenient view severely warned him vide No. Lab.(1) 7‑4/88, dated 17‑7‑1988.
3. In his appeal, the appellant has challenged the correctness of the adverse remarks and alleged that these are based on enmity and malice against him and were communicated to him after a lapse of about 4 years.
4. In their written statement the respondents have asserted that despite guidance, counselling and warnings, his work was always found unsatisfactory, he took no interest in work and remained reluctant to take responsibility.
5. We heard the counsel of the parties and also went through the relevant records produced before us. In the course of personal pleadings, the counsel of the appellant dwelt on enmity and malice, but could not advance any tangible instance to prove his contention. On examination, it was found that these two ACRs were not written by one reporting officer. The report of 1987?is written by one officer and the report of 1988 is written by another officer. The Countersigning Officer has also not simply countersigned the Reports, but has also given his specific assessment. In the absence of any logical proof, we cannot accept that all these three officers were inimical to him. Moreover, not only his two ACRs, under appeal, are adverse, but all his ACRs since 1984 are orchestrated in this tune.
6. ?? The plea of the appellant that he was not counselled is untenable as it has been clearly stated in both the ACRs that he was counselled but he did not improve. Since 1984 the appellant's ACRs are consistently engragious. These adverse reports were sufficient to shake him to demonstrate a better performance. We do not accept his futile plea that he was not I counselled.
7. On the delay in the, communication of adverse remarks, the view of the Tribunal in the judgment delivered in appeal of Muhammad Sadiq v. Government of Sindh and others (Appeal No. 94/90), decided on 25th March, 1991, is that it is not a sufficient ground to expunge the adverse remarks. This Tribunal still holds the same view. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:‑
"As for delay in communication of the adverse remarks, it has been P repeatedly held by this Tribunal that the delay by itself is not sufficient to expunge the adverse report though it does affect the sting carried by such report. Of course with passage of time it loses its effectiveness, but it continues to remain on record regardless of the value to be attached to it at any particular time."
8. We are of the considered view that the adverse remarks contained in the ACRs of the appellant for the years 1987 and 1988 cannot be expunged. The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
A.A./398/Sr.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.