could not be stretched so as to be treated as "adverse
remarks" in circumstances.
Zia‑ul‑Haq Makhdoom for Appellant.
Abdul Latif Ansari for Official Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1994.
JUDGMENT
GHULAM ABBAS SOOMRO (MEMBER): ‑‑Appellant
has filed the present appeal for expunction of
adverse remarks pertaining to the two periods viz.
16‑7‑1987 to 31‑12‑1987 and 9‑4-1990 to 20‑8‑1990
which were conveyed to him by a single order dated
17‑12‑1992.
2. The facts are that the appellant being Law
Graduate, was recruited as Deputy Superintendent
of Police on 9‑9‑1974. The appellant had
unblemished record of service prior to the
impugned adverse remarks. The case of the
appellant for regular appointment as Deputy
Superintendent of Police was scrutinised under
MLO‑55 and referred to the Sindh Public Service
Commission and vide Notification No.
POL‑PLD‑2‑24/78, dated 31‑7‑1978 issued by the
Secretary to Government of Sindh, Home
Department, the appellant's appointment as D.S.P.
was regularised. The appellant was promoted as
Superintendent of Police on 1‑6‑1986 on the
recommendation of Departmental Promotion
Committee and during the course of service in
various capacities the appellant earned
commendation and appreciation of service on
number of occasions as reported in para. 5 of the
memo of appeal. It is also alleged by the appellant
that on account of his efforts number of notorious
dacoits were eliminated and as such D.I.G., Sukkur
Range, recommended him for award of
Quaid‑e‑Azam Police Medal, grant of plot of land and
accelerated promotion. On 17‑12‑1992 the appellant
received a communication from Government of
Sindh. Services and General Administration
Department, Annexure `F whereby the following
adverse remarks were conveyed to him for the
period from 16‑7‑1987 to 31‑12‑1987 and 9‑4‑1990 to
20‑8‑1990 (same remarks for both periods);
"Not fit for promotion'
The appellant submitted his explanation dated
12‑1‑1993 Annexure `C' which was rejected by the
Government of Sindh, S&GAD vide Order dated
3‑10‑1993 Annexure `G', hence, the present appeal.
The respondents have contested this appeal by filing
written statement.
3. We have heard Mr. Ziaul Haq Makhdoom, learned
Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Latif
Ansari, the learned A.A.‑G. on behalf of the
respondents and examined the entire original
record placed before us by the departmental
representative.
4. The sole point which requires consideration is as
to whether the above‑noted remarks should be
treated as adverse or not.
5. After careful consideration of the arguments
advanced by both sides we are of the considered
view that the remark in question ought not have
been treated as adverse for reasons mentioned
below:‑‑
(a) Perusal of paragraph No. 4 of the Instructions for
filling of the A.C.R. form would indicate that the
Reporting Officer was expected to counsel the officer
being reported upon about his weak points and
advise him to improve and that adverse remarks
could only be recorded when that officer failed to in
prove despite the counselling. In the present case no
such procedure was adopted before communicating
the impugned remarks to the appellant.
(b) We have given our most anxious thought to the
impugned remark and find that it cannot be
regarded as an adverse entry in the record. In this
connection it would be worthwhile to mention that
Items Nos. (II) and (III) of Chapter (b) "fitness for
promotion" in Part VI of A.C.R. form should be read
together and not in isolation since both the same are
inter related. Item II "fit for promotion" indicated the
state when the officer was found to be fit for
promotion on his turn and not out of turn whereas
item No. III "not yet fit for promotion" very distinctly
pointed to the state where the officer concerned
could not be considered for promotion with
immediate effect scanning thereby that the officer
was not fit for promotion for want of requirement of
the Departmental Promotion Committee but it could
not be possibly stretched to say that his record being
satisfactory, he was not fit for promotion. At this
juncture we may refer to para. 4 of the written
statement filed on behalf of the respondent which
contained the following comments of the Reporting
Officer:
"As far as I recall the case for promotion etc, of
Moula Bux Khushik was sent after encounter in
which the notorious ‑dacoit Ali Nawaz Brohi was
killed. However, the case was rejected by the
Government."
It has, therefore, become crystal clear that the
appellant's case for accelerated promotion having
been turned down, the impugned entry was
maintained in A.C.R. as by that time the appellant
had not become fit for promotion. Apart from that
the appellant having been promoted as
Superintendent of Police in 1986, had not completed
the statutory period of service to become eligible for
further promotion as Deputy Inspector‑General of
Police and as such the natural consequence thereof
could be nothing but to say that he was not yet fit for
promotion.
(c) We have found that two comments of the
Countersigning Officer existed on the record for the
said two periods which go along way to establish
that the impugned remark could not at all be
designated as adverse remark. In his comments Mr.
Muhammad Nawaz Malik, the Countersigning
Officer for the period from 16‑7‑1987 to 31‑12‑1987
shad observed as under:
"No remarks were intended as adverse in the A.C.R.
under reference, I wonder how it was decided to
convey "needs to learn and improve his
administration /management force" (not
communicated to appellant) as adverse remarks. At
best it could be conveyed as an advice and no
representation lies against such advice. Mr. Moula
Bux Khushik is a well built, well‑honest and very
obedient type of officer. I am sure by now he must
have improved a lot. As stated earlier my remarks
were not intended to be treated as adverse. The
competent authority is well-come to dilate them
please."
It seems that the Departmental Authority had
communicated the underlined remarks to the
Reporting Officer for comments which seems to be
more weighty than the impugned remarks but that
too seemed to have been waived on account of the
comments of the Countersigning Officer. In any case
the Countersigning Officers' comments/assessment
for the same period being relevant, we are not
inclined to believe that the Reporting Officer could
have intended to regard the impugned remark "not
yet fit for promotion" as adverse.
6. So far as the comments for the period from
9‑4‑1990 to 20‑8‑1990 were concerned, Syed Saadat
Ali Shah, then Inspector‑General of Police, Sindh,
Karachi, commented as under: (Letter No.
ACR‑PS‑DY/93, dated 16‑12‑1993):
"Mr. Moula Bux Khushik is a mature officer and took
keen interest in his work. According to the laid down
standard he is fit in all respects for
promotion/mote‑over."
That being the case; the impugned remark could not
be treated as adverse remark.
7. Above all the letters of appreciations and
recommendations for accelerated promotion
produced alongwith memo of appeal viz. Annexures
`B‑1' to B‑15' indicated that appellant had
sufficiently satisfactory record of service and as such
the impugned remarks could not be stretched so as
to be treated as adverse remarks.
8. In view of the above noted circumstances the
learned A.A.G. also very candidly conceded that the
impugned remark was not adverse one.
9. Aforementioned reasons have been recorded for
acceptance of the appeal by short order dated
23‑11‑1994, which is reproduced below:
"Appellant and his counsel Mr. Zia Makhdoom
present. Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, A.A.‑G. also present.
Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the relevant documents
with assistance of the said counsel. For reasons to be
recorded later on, the appeal is allowed to the extent
that the remarks sought to be expunged in the
appeal are declared as not adverse. There shall be no
order as to costs.
H.B.T./592/Sr:S Appeal accepted.
;
