Find a Lawyer

Case No. 454/906 of 1984, decided on 27th April, 1985.

‑‑‑Adverse remarks by countersigning officer‑‑Supported by concrete instances‑‑Interference, in circumstances, refused by Tribunal‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.

Muhammad Aslam Wahla and Khalid Ranjha for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Allah Yar Ansari, Extra Assistant Commissioner, Layye, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks for the year 1982, given by respondent No. 2 be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the period 1‑1‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982, vide letter, dated 5‑11‑1983, which were as under:‑‑

"I agree with the D.C. that he is an average officer but his reputation is not good and Court work is below average."

These remarks were recorded by the learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. He filed representation against the same on 3‑12‑1983 and after considering the whole case, it was felt by the next higher authority that the adverse recorded in this A.C.R. for the period 1‑1‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982, were consistent with the facts and his representation was rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. It has been vehemently argued that the above comments were duly uncalled for and do not disclose application of mind inasmuch as after agreeing with the Deputy Commissioner, there was no room left for the said remarks. It has been argued that in the month of January, 1982 appellant's performance was found satisfactory and in the month of February it was observed that the appellant while he was E. A. C. Minchinabad had decided 62 cases including 39 regular cases in 21 working days and earned 91 units, and in this way his performance was good. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that in the month of September; 1982, it was observed that the appellant had decided 50 cases including 36 regular cases in 20 working days and his performance was considered good. The same was the case in October, 1982 and January, 1983, when it was found that his work was fairly satisfactory. With regard to the remarks of the learned Commissioner, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that these were ill founded and were not based on record.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Department and has read in extenso before us the detailed justification given by the learned Commissioner. According to him learned Commissioner has fully justified the assessment of work and conduct of the appellant and no exception could be taken to it.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and found that the learned Commissioner's personal knowledge, which he derived from the fact that Qazi Abdul Rashid complained against his general conduct quoting certain instances of corruption. Similar complaint was made by one Muhammad Sharif son of Abdul Shakoor, and the Local Bar Association was not satisfied with his working and protested against his conduct through s Resolution in October, 1982. We further find that the learned Commissioner has cited the case in which he not only acquitted two suspects namely Abdul Rehman and Mst. Balqees in case F.I.R. No. 102/81, involved under section 4/55/52 of Land Customs Act of P.S. Mandi Sadiq Ganj, but also provided lodging facilities to Mst. Bilquees in his house for immoral purposes. An inquiry was held by Mr. Safdar Javed Syed former Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, who found that the appellant acted in a haste and did not allow the prosecution sufficient time to prove its version, whereas the accused were apprehended near the Pak‑Indian Border and their contention was that they were the residents of Karachi but the appellant ignored to ponder on the question as to how the so called residents of Karachi were found on the Pak‑Indian Border in Minchinabad Tehsil or how it was that foreign currency was recovered from them.

8. In view of the above justification citing absolute and concrete instances we hardly feel any justification to interfere with the impugned orders, and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. 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.