RIAZ AHMED ARAIN Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

1. GHULAM MUJADID ISRAN (MEMBER): ‑‑Riaz Ahmed Arain, Assistant Research Officer, Agriculture Research Institute, Tando Jam has filed this appeal against adverse remarks for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 conveyed to him vide Letter No. SO(A‑IV)1(43)/89, dated 12th January, 1991 and departmental Order No. S.O.(A‑IV)ARI‑493/85, dated 7‑4‑1992 rejecting his representation.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was communicated the adverse remarks on behalf of Secretary, Agriculture and Livestock Department vide letter, dated 12th January, 1991 which is reproduced as under:‑‑

3. "No. S.O. (A‑IV) 1(43)/89,

4. Government of Sindh

5. Agriculture and Livestock Department

6. Karachi, dated the 12th January, 1991.

7. My dear,

8. Mr. Riaz Ahmed Arain,

9. Your confidential reports for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 are containing the following adverse entries:‑‑

10. Parts V and V I

11. Column

12. Contents

13. Adverse Remarks

14. Part V

15. Pen‑picture

16. The officer has not progressed parallel to his length of service.

17. (VI‑B) (iii)

18. Fitness for promotion.

19. Not yet fit for promotion.

20. 1987

21. Part VI

22. Fitness for promotion.

23. Not yet fit for promotion.

24. Part V

25. Pen‑picture

26. The officer rigid‑minded. Does not pick and adopt the guidance of his superiors.

27. 1989

28. Part V

29. Pen‑picture

30. Pays little attention to the advice of superiors.

31. The above defects are communicated to you and you are advised to make efforts to remove the same.

32. The duplicate of this letter (enclosed) may please be signed (with date) and returned to the undersigned by registered post in token of having received the original.

33. A copy of this letter is being placed on your actor roll.

34. (Sd.)

MUHAMMAD JURIAL MANGRIO

35. SECTION OFFICER (A‑IV),

36. ? For Secretary to Government of Sindh.

37. To

38. Mr. Riaz Ahmed Arain,

39. Assistant Research Officer, A & R.I. Tando Jam

40. The appellant preferred representation for expunction of the adverse remarks which was rejected. He then came to this Tribunal in the present appeal.

41. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the official respondents. We also perused the relevant record with their assistance.

(2) We have given our anxious thought to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and found that in the present case relevant instructions about writing of ACR's (hereinafter called the said instruction) issued by Services and General Administration Department (Regulation Wing) have been ignored. The adverse remarks for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 were not communicated to appellant in time as the same were brought to his notice in January 1991. In this connection we refer to para. 34 of the said instructions which is reproduced as under:

42. "34. The timely communication of adverse remarks is of paramount importance. The authorities competent to communicate the adverse remarks should ensure that the adverse remarks are communicated without fail to person concerned by the end of June. Failure to do so will attract disciplinary action against the person responsible for the delay."

3. We feel that the appellant was not given a fair deal by communicating to him the adverse remarks in time so that he could have been in a position to represent if necessary.

43. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the adverse entries were given to the appellant with mala fide intention in order to refuse him his move‑over to Grade‑18. We see some force in his arguments in view of the fact that the extracts of adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 were communicated to the appellant through Director, Rice Research Sindh Rice Research Institute Dokri vide his letter dated 30‑1‑1991, whereas the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held eau 17‑1‑1991 to consider the move‑over cases of the officers of Agriculture Research Wing. On ‑ perusal of the minutes of the Committee we noticed that the appellant's case was also considered in the said meeting and due to adverse entries in his Confidential Reports his case was deferred. We are of the view that communication of adverse remarks to the appellant in such a manner was not in accordance with the standing instructions and action may be taken against the officers/concerned due to failure on their part for not communicating the adverse entries to the appellant within the stipulated period so that the officer concerned could have removed the defects or asked for their expunction.

4. We have also taken note of the fact that the confidential report of the appellant for the period 1‑1‑1986 to 31‑8‑1986 prior to the period under dispute is `good' and the report for the period 1‑1‑1990.to 31‑12‑1990 initiated by the same reporting officer who has given him adverse remarks is also `good'. It appears that this report was not considered by the DPC because it was initiated late as on 2‑2‑1991 and signed by the countersigning officer in May, 1991.

44. It was also brought to our notice that the appellant was placed under the same reporting officer w.e.f. 1‑9‑1986 to 1‑10‑1991 ignoring the instruction as in para. 41 of the said instructions which makes it obligatory to the authority concerned that the officer receiving adverse remarks for two successive years from the same reporting officer should be placed under another reporting officer. The para. 41 is reproduced as under:‑‑

45. "41. Action in case of recording adverse remarks by same reporting officer for two successive years. In order to guard against personal likes and dislikes an official receiving adverse remarks for two successive years from the same reporting officer should be placed under another reporting officer." '

46. We have also noticed that no counselling or warning was ever issued to the appellant by the respondents during the period under report to enable him to make efforts for improvement. The appellant was kept in total ignorance that his superiors were dissatisfied with him.

5. In the light of above discussion we see no reason to uphold the remarks. We therefore accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders with no order as to costs and direct that the impugned adverse remarks from the ACR of the appellant for the periods 1‑9‑1986 to 31‑12‑1986, 1‑1‑1987 to 31‑12‑1987, 1‑1‑1988 to 31‑12‑1988 and 1‑1‑1989 to 31‑12‑1989 be expugned.

6. Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal this 20th day of July, 1993 at Karachi.

47. H.B.T./415/Sr.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal accepted.