1999 P L C (C.S.
) 731
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Roshan Ali Mangi and Noor Muhammad Magsi, Members
MUZAFFAR ALI
Versus
INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF PAKISTAN RAILWAYS POLICE LAHORE and
2 others
Appeal No.4(Q) of 1996, decided on 23rd July, 1997.
Civil service‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Adverse remarks in A.C.R.‑‑‑Expunction‑‑‑Civil servant against whom
adverse remarks were recorded in his A.C.R. for relevant year, the very
next year was recommended for promotion‑‑‑Recommendations of
Departmental Promotion Committee in favour of civil servant had
indicated that there was something wrong between civil servant and
Countersigning Officer‑‑‑Record had shown that previous record of civil
servant was not bad, except certain warnings and minor punishment like
'censure' but on the whole he had a better record‑‑‑Authority could not
show any warning or counseling issued to civil servant during relevant
year, which was mandatory provision under Rules‑‑‑Civil servant had
been graded 'A' in his A.C.R. for the year next to year in which adverse
remarks were recorded against him, which had shown that he had better
reputation‑‑‑Adverse remarks recorded in ,N.C.R. of civil servant for
relevant year, were ordered to be expunged in circumstances.
Ch. Rafiq Ahmed for Appellant. Shakeel Ahmed and Sultan Khalid for
Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st July, 1997.
JUDGMENT
NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).‑‑‑‑Being aggrieved by a
communication of adverse remarks, recorded in the ACR for the year
1995 by the Countersigning Officer vide office of the S.P. Pakistan
Railways Police, Quetta letter dated 15‑2‑1996, the appellant Muzaffar Ali,
filed departmental appeal to the Inspector General of Pakistan Railways
Police, Lahore on 3‑3‑1996 which was rejected by the I.G. PRP, on 9‑5‑1996
and forwarded to the appellant vide letter dated 13‑5‑1996. The appellant
filed present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant appeared and argued the case
that the impugned order dated 13‑5‑1996 is contrary to law and facts as
the D.I.‑G. (Countersigning Officer) is not well‑conversant with daily work
of the appellant and he cannot assess the. performance of the appellant.
The Reporting Officer (AIG) is the immediate officer, he knows the daily
performance of his subordinate (appellant) and accordingly he did not
record any adverse remarks against the appellant. The learned counsel
contended that the reporting officer was satisfied with the appellant and
he has accordingly written ACR for the year 1995. He submitted that
adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer have no legal
effect which required to be expunged. The learned counsel also
submitted that the Crime Branch where the appellant was posted as
Sub‑Inspector is not competent to initiate the investigation of any case at
its own. It only can investigate the matters which are transferred to the
Crime Branch from the higher Authorities. It is neither declared a
separate Police Station nor the Police Officials posted in this Branch could
register the cases at their own nor they could take preventive measures
under section 109, Cr.P.C. as the Officer Incharge of Crime Branch does
not function his duties as S.H.O., as such, the rejection of appellant's
departmental appeal on the grounds that he failed to detect a single case
of narcotics or illicit weapons, to register a case under the Head of Local
and Special Laws and to take preventive measures under section 190,
Cr.P.C., is not justified and the remarks recorded in the ACR are liable to
be expunged. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention
that recently the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held
on 15‑4‑1997 recommended the appellant for promotion to the post of
Inspector which vitiates all the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of
year 1995. He prayed that the appeal may please be accepted expunging
the adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer.
3.The learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents argued that
the appellant has no case as he was warned by his superiors several
times to improve himself but he failed to amend himself and he did not
make sincere efforts to perform his duties effectively, professionally and
showed lack of interest in official duties as the remarks recorded by the
Countersigning Officer are justifiable as he has recorded these remarks
on the basis of his personal assessment. Regarding recommendation for
promotion of the appellant to the post of Inspector, the learned counsel
conceded the fact and produced the minutes of the meeting held on
15‑4‑1997.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer are as
under:‑‑
"ACR for 1‑1‑1995 to 29‑7‑1995.
"6. Rating as crime control "Below Average"
officer
6(a) Investigation of crime "Below Average.
against property.
6(b) Preventive action and action "Below Average"
under Local and Special Laws.
10. Rating as supervisory "Average"
officer.
18. Class of report. "C"
Fitness for promotion. "Not yet fit for promotion but
likely to become fit in due course
of time."
General Remarks: "Below average working in all
aspects of police working."
ACR for 30‑7‑1995 to 24‑12‑1995.
"6. Rating as crime control "Below Average"
officer.
6(a) Investigation of crime "Below Average"
against property.
6(b) Preventive action and action "Below Average"
under Local and Special Laws.
18. Class of report. "C"
Fitness for Promotion. "Not yet fit for promotion but
likely to become fit in due course
of time.
General remarks: "Below average working in all
aspects of police working."
The aforesaid remarks have been communicated to the appellant on
15‑2‑1996 which remained under process between the appellant and the
respondents upto 17‑6‑1996 by filing the present appeal before this
Tribunal On 15‑4‑1997 a meeting of Departments Promotion Committee
was held in which the name of the appellant was considered alongwith
others for promotion to the post of Inspector. The DPC recommended the
appellant for promotion as Inspector in the following terms:‑‑
"S.I. Muzaffar Ali (S. No. 4) was superseded in the DPC held on 6‑4‑1996
due to adverse comments in his ACR for the year 1995. He has earned "A"
report during year 1996 and has a clean record of service except for one
censure in 1983. Therefore, the DPC declares S.I. Muzaffar Ali fit for
promotion and recommends as such to the approving authority."
S.Is. from S.No. S to S. No. 15 are declared unfit and recommended to be
superseded for not qualifying Upper School Course. " .
A bare reading of the aforesaid recommendation of the DPC in favour of
the appellant indicates that there is something wrong between the
appellant and the Countersigning Officer. Record shows that the previous
record of the appellant was not so bad. There were some warnings and
minor punishment like "censure" but on the whole he has a better
record. The learned counsel for the respondents also could not show any
warning or counseling issued to the appellant during whole the year
which is mandatory provision under the rules. The appellant has been
graded "A" in the ACR of 1996 which also shows that he has a better
reputation. In view of the aforesaid discussion and perusal of record we
have no alternative but to accept the appeal setting aside the impugned
order dated 15‑2‑1996 with the directions that the adverse remarks
recorded in the ACR of the appellant by the Countersigning Officer be
expunged and treated as "good".
5. No order as to costs.
6. Parties be informed.
H.B.T./258/ST.F. Appeal allowed.
;
