Find a Lawyer

Case No. 424/1438 of 1982, decided on 11th July, 1982.

‑‑ Adverse remarks‑Reporting Officer in his comments on representation for expunction justifying his remarks by quoting specific instances and documents and his verbal warnings‑Assessment of work based on concrete examples‑Interference, in circumstances, refused by Service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

.‑Mr. Shaukat Javaid Farooqi, Magistrate Sectien 30 (Judicial) Lahore Cantt., Lahore has filed this Appeal under 'section 4 of‑the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, S G A & I Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondent.

2. By virtue of this Appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks contained in letter, dated 28th September, 1976 given to him for the period 28th July. 1975 to 11th December, 1975 by H. R. Pasha the then Reporting Officer of the appellant be expunged.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks, vide Confidential D. O. No. C. A./D. S. P./S &GAD‑70/76, dated 28th September, 1976 from the Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department for the period from 28th July, 1975 to 11th December, 1975 that his work has been favourably commented upon but it has been reported that he is "Below Average" in initiative and drive, ability to plan, organise and supervise work and in his output perseverance as well to devotion to duty including his personality. It was also conveyed to him through the said letter that his interest in economic development was of routine nature. Ultimately the pen picture about the appellant was that he never settled down in Sargodha and he worked in a very slipshod and ad hoc manner and could not be trusted with any responsibility and was directed to improve his work and conduct. The appellant made representation against the said adverse report. It was processed but ultimately the same was rejected by the ex‑Additional Chief Secretary. However, he again made representations, vide his letter, dated 21st July, 1981. The Section Officer (Confidential) informed him on behalf of the Additional Chief Secretary that he had only one right of making representation and the same stood rejected by the earlier decision of his predecessor, and the same had attained finality. He was also told that his representation under reference cannot be entertained for re‑opening the case which stands finally rejected.

4. We have beard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record carefully with their assistance.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the remarks were bias being outcome of personal annoyance of the then Deputy Commissioner over appellant's transfer. He has also cited an incident in connection with late Prime Minster Mr.. Z. A. Bhutto at Sargodha in December, 1975. It has been submitted that the Deputy Commissioner (Reporting Officer) ordered the appellant that the Rest House, Sillanwali should be made available for accommodating Prime Minister's crew who should also be provided free meals and drinks. The refusal of the appellant in this respect infuriated the said Reporting Officer and at the same time he ordered him to draw a cheque of Rs. 10,000 from the account of the Municipal Committee to disburse the said expenditure. He has also made grievances that the appellant was made to sit in the Retiring Rooms of different Magistrates thus the output was affected due to no fault of his. He has given figures of the units so earned by the appellant for the period under report and explained that despite the said handicap his output was quite sufficient and upto the mark. The learned counsel for the appellant in the end has said that the appellant's output after the said period has been considered upto the mark, therefore, the solitary adverse A. C. R. for the period under dispute was unjustified.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the adverse entry given by the Reporting Officer had been fully justified by him in his detailed comments so offered when called 'Upon to do so. It has been further submitted that if the Reporting Officer is in a position to justify the adverse entries so given by him to a subordinate the consistent policy of this Tribunal has been to maintain the same in view of the various judgments of the Supreme Court in this behalf.

7. We have carefully examined the comments of H. R. Pasha the then Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha who has vehemently denied allega tion of malice or annoyance on his part against the appellant and has rather stated that when the appellant made a move for his transfer from Sargodha, he did not stand in his way to get a posting to a place near his home. The Reporting Officer has also cited an example of utter lack of responsibility on the part of appellant, while was given the assignment o1 P. T. M. and Administrator, Municipal Committee, Sillanwali. The Reporting Officer has also referred to different documents in support o: his contention to show that his assessment of the work of appellant was based on cogent reasons supported by various events and documents which show that be lacked responsibility and was negligent in the discharge of his duties. With regard to his work as Magistrate, the Reporting Officer has stated a specific case State v. Nasiruddin and others under sections 380‑458, P. P. C. of Sillanwali Police Station and has observed that analysis of the said case clearly convinced him that the appellant wrote a sketchy slipshod order of discharge of the accused in the said case without spelling out the ground for discharge. We have also found that the appellant was verbally given warning by the said Reporting Officer and was told that if warning failed to produce any results he was likely to get a bad report. On the other hand the appellant has failed to bring on the record any document to show that the Reporting Officer bore any personal grudge against him except that he has made oral allegations it this respect.

8. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the assessment of the work made by the Reporting Officer as well as that of Countersigning Officer is fully justified based on concrete examples and Appellant has been afforded full opportunity to represent his case before his superiors. Therefore we do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The result is we dismiss the Appeal as being without any merits.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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