Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 429 of 1979, decided on 24th February, 1980.

‑‑‑ Adverse remarks‑Remarks for 3 consecutive years recorded by same Officer‑Communicated jointly in one lot‑Reports prior to 3 years recorded by same officer fairly good‑Proposal of transfer by same Officer pressed during period of adverse remarks‑Inference of ill‑will could he drawn on part of reporting Officer in such circum stances‑Adverse remarks, in circumstances, expunged by Service Tribunal‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Mr. Mohammad Nasrullah Khan, appellant, is a Lecturer in Grade 18 with about 19 years service. Two batches of Lecturers were promoted as Assistant Professors from Grade 17 to Grade 18. According to the appellant, during 1977, a large number of lecturers junior to him were promoted to Grade 18. No reason was given for not promoting the appellant. An application was submitted on 25‑8‑77 by the appellant enquiring the reasons for his non‑promotion. The appellant was ultimately informed by a letter dated 24‑10‑77 that he teas ignored due to the unsatisfactory record of service. The appellant submitted an applica tion dated 18‑12‑1977 in which he represented that his record has been satisfactory throughout the service and as such the decision was not justified. It was at this stage that the Director of Education, Lahore, communicated vide letter dated 28‑2‑78 to the appellant adverse remarks from the ACRs. of the appellant for the years 1974, 1975 and 1976. The remarks are as under:‑‑

1974.‑‑Inclined to be outspoken and arrogant at times. Could be a more desirable colleague if he learns to control his temper and subordinate his personal interests.

1975.‑An average teacher interested only in his class. Slightly whimsical and eccentric. Inclined to be blunt and arrogant 'fried to create administrative problems. The Directorate was moved for his transfer as his presence considered detrimental to the College Administration.

1976.‑ An average teacher interested only in his class work. Slightly whimsical and eccentric. Inclined to be arrogant at times. Tried to create administrative problems. Appologised for his misbehaviour when his transfer case matured last year. Trying to improve. Conduct under observation.

The appellant submitted a representation dated 19‑3‑78. Another representa tion was submitted on 27‑7‑79. The above‑mentioned representations were rejected by the Secretary, Education vide his letter dated 17‑9‑1979. The appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal with the prayer that tire adverse remarks may be expunged. We have heard the parties and seen the record of the appellant.

The following two main points have been urged on behalf of the appellant:

(i) The adverse remarks were communicated in one lot. This is in violation of Instruction No. 34.

(ii) If adverse remarks are given for two successive years by the same reporting officer, then according to Instruction No. 41, the officer should be transferred and placed under another reporting officer. This instruction has also been violated.

It is quite clear that the adverse remarks were communicated in one lot which is against Government instruction and thus the appellant had no opportunity to remedy his shortcomings. Secondly, there is violation of Instruction No. 41 as the officer should have been placed under another reporting officer. As a matter of fact the Principal, Prof. Khalid Masood Qureshi, on 27‑11‑75 moved for the transfer of the appellant from Sheikhupura to some other place as the appellant was obstructing the administration of the College but this proposal never materialised. This, however, shows that things were not all right between the appellant and the Principal. The same Principal had, as a matter of fact, given the appellant fairly good assessments for the years 1972, and 1973. It appears that difference arose somewhere in 1974. As the Instructions No. 34 and 41 have been violated and inference of ill‑will can be drawn from the perusal of the ACRs. written by Prof. Khalid Masood Qureshi, the remarks for 1974, 1975 and 1976 are expunged and the appeal is accepted.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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