Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 785/828 of 1974, decided on 17th May, 1979.

‑‑-----S. 21‑Representation to next higher authority‑Cannot be decided by authority whose order is represented against‑Representation for expunction‑ of adverse remarks recorded by Divisional Forests Officer and Chief Conservator of Forests addressed to Minister incharge of Department through proper channel‑Held, could not be decided by Chief Conservator of Forests‑Matter remanded by Service Tribunal for decision of representation by Administrative Secretary of Forest Department.

In this case the appellant is aggrieved by the following adverse remarks, for the period from 29‑2‑1973 to 13‑7‑1973 and from 26‑7‑1973 to 31‑12‑1973, recorded by the Divisional Forest officer concerned and the Conservator of Forests, Multan Region:‑

From 29‑2‑1973 to 13‑7‑1973

D. F.‑O. (iv) Amenability to discipline . ... Below Average.

General Remarks. Does not use his wits

in construction work.

C. O. F. General remarks by higher officers. An unwilling worker

Unfit for promotion.

From 26‑7‑1973 to 31‑12‑1973

General remarks by higher officers. Integrity doubtful. He

spent more time in sub

mitting representations

than to attend to his

work. He was found

absent from office a

number of times while

C. F. was out on tour."

These remarks appeared to have been conveyed to the appellant vide letter No. 673/F, dated the 27th of July, 1974 by the Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan, and were actually received by the appellant on 29‑2‑1974. The appellant filed a representation on 6th of August, 1974, against the same to the Minister for Agriculture, Punjab, Lahore, through proper channel. It further appeared that the representation was withheld and ultimately the appellant filed this appeal before this Tribunal on the 8th of November, 1974, against the same. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was intimated on 2‑1.1‑1976, that the representation for the expunction of adverse remarks for the year 1973 have been considered and rejected by the Chief Conservator of Forests Punjab, Lahore. The aforesaid order had a reference to an earlier order passed by the department rejecting his representation. The Government Pleader has objected to the maintain ability of the appeal that the adverse remarks are not justiciable unless the same are proved to be mala fide or there was some other basic legal defect in the same. He thus pressed that this appeal be rejected. The appellant however. submits that he had a right to have his representation decided by the next higher authority, namely the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Forests Department. He contends that asper orders rejecting his representa tion, the matter appears to have been rejected by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, himself. Reliance is placed in this behalf on section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, which was in force at the relevant time. It is submitted that according to the aforesaid provisions of law the appellant had a right to have his representation considered and decided by the next higher authority, which in this case was the Secretary, Forests, Government of the Punjab. The appellant also submitted that in the circumstances, the main issue in this appeal is whether his representa tion has been decided by the Competent Authority or not. The department has nothing to show to us that his representation at all has been considered and decided by the Competent Authority. The only objection pressed by the department was that it was not addressed to the proper authority, namely the Secretary to Government Punjab, Forests Department. After hearing both the parties we are clearly of the opinion that the representation was no doubt addressed to the Minister for Agriculture and Forests, Government of the Punjab, but it was sent through proper channel and thus the Secretary, Forests failed as he was competent to decide the representation of the appellant. In any case, the Chief Conservator of Forests Punjab, was not competent to hear the representation under section 21, against his own order, as he was not the next higher authority who recorded the major portion of the impugned adverse remarks against the appellant. We accordingly allow this appeal and remand this case to the Secretary, Forests, Punjab, for disposal of the representation of the appellant, on merits.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.