Find a Lawyer

Case No. 453/266 of 1985.

--- Adverse remarks in A.C.R.--Bias report--Remarks recorded by reporting officer agreed to by first countersigning authority Second countersigning authority assessing same as biased without giving reasons for considering such remarks as biased--Service Tribunal expressing dissatisfaction with such opinion.

--- Adverse remarks--Recorded by reporting officer and agreed to by countersigning authority--Administrative Secretary competent to convey adverse remarks to concerned officer considering remarks as biased and not conveying same--Adverse remarks however based on facts of enquiry against officer reported upon and on Summary submitted to Governor/ M.L.A.--Direction issued by Governor/M.L.A. that adverse entry be brought on C.R. Dossier of officer--Remarks thus conveyed to officer concerned after about 3 years--Delay of 3 years, in circumstances, held, not fatal for such remarks and Governor coupled with his authority Or-M.L.A. was fully competent to pass such order and no exception could be taken to same--Service Tribunal- in circumstances dismissed appeal for expunction of such remarks--Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974). S. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz counsel for Appellant.

Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondent.

Dr. Muhammad Hanif Arif, Assistant Professor of Urology, Nishter Medical College, Multan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned letter, dated 2-1-1985 containing the adverse remarks for the year 1981 and final letter, dated 12-6-1985/6-7-1985, be set aside and adverse remarks be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, vide letter, dated 2-1-1985, was conveyed the following adverse remarks for the year 1981, which relate to the period of his posting at K. E. M. C. , Lahore:

Energetic young Surgeon with average professional knowledge and skill. He is rather excitable and has unstable personality. His behaviour with subordinate nursing staff has been indecent and undersirable.

After enquiry on complaint of immoral activity was transferred out of Lahore as an administrative action."

The appellant filed a representation, dated 8-1-1985, which was considered and rejected by Government, vide letter, dated 12-6-1985. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance. I have also perused the report of Kh. Mohammad Sadiq, Principal, K.E.M.C. as well as justification given by Professor Dr. Fateh Khan Akhtar, who was the Reporting Officer in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has at the very outset challenged the ante-date of the report by making a submission that the remarks have been conveyed after a lapse of more than 3 years, which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of rules as contained in paras. 2 and 34 of the Booklet containing the rules for writing of A.C.Rs. and communication of adverse remarks. It was further submitted that the remarks of Professor Dr. Fateh Khan Akhtar, K.E.M.C. were biased in nature as he appeared as witness in the inquiry so conducted against the appellant. He has referred to the fact that this Reporting Officer has also given him a very good report for the years 1979 and 1980 therefore. he has no justification to comment adversely against him for the year 1981. He has relied on the certain certificates issued to him from time to time by the K.E.M.C. He has laid a great stress on the point that the second countersigning authority i.e. Secretary, Health at the relevant time, had commented that the remarks of the Reporting Officer were biased.

6. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted that there was no dispute about the fact that para.34 of the Booklet of writing of A.C.R, intends timely communication of adverse remarks but at the same time it has also laid down in the same para that report containing adverse remarks be furnished to a civil servant at any time comes to the notice of the Authority. According to him communication of adverse remarks in this case were not in contradiction of the said instructions. Learned Deputy District Attorney has advanced further arguments by submitting that the impugned adverse remarks for 1981 were not communicated to the appellant as Secretary, Health at the relevant time, assessed the report of the Reporting Officer-as biased. This being so there was hardly any justification to communicate the said remarks to the appellant and however, the matter was referred to the Regulation Wing of the S. G. A. I Department on the point of validity of the remarks of the Secretary, Health when the assessment of the Reporting Officer was based on facts of inquiry against the appellant and summary submitted to the Governor/M.L.A, wherein the Governor had desired that adverse entry be brought on his dossier. In this manner the learned Deputy District Attorney explained the delay which had occurred in this case.

7. With regard to the merits of the case learned Deputy District Attorney has vehemently resisted the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that the appellant was morally wreck which was subject of inquiry by a High Powered Committee and ultimately he was found guilty of moral turpitude having an illicit liaison a staff Nurse, as there was no direct evidence to prove his guilty under Hudood Ordinance, the case was referred to worthy Governor who himself ordered that adverse entry be placed on his A. C. R. Learned Deputy District Attorney has referred to the letter of Kh. Muhammad Sadiq, Principal, K.E.M.C. to the Secretary, Health, Government of the Punjab, as well as justification of Professor Dr. Malik Fateh Khan Akhtar, Professor of Urology, K. E. M. C. and has submitted that these two documents were sufficient for the maintenance of the adverse remarks for dismissal of his appeal.

8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that there is ample force in the argument of the learned Deputy District Attorney that delay which had occurred in conveying the A.C.R. to the appellant was due to the observation of the learned Secretary Health at the relevant time that the assessment of the Reporting Officer was biased as he being the final countersigning authority. The matter was deferred. But as there were two serious reports against the appellant one by Professor Malik Fateh Khan Akhtar and second by Professor Dr. Khawaja Muhammad Sadiq, supplemented by the departmental inquiry against the appellant, the matter was referred to the Regulation Wing of the S. G. A. & I Department and it was ultimately decided by the Regulation Wing that the order of Governor would prevail over the order of the Secretary, Health and adverse report be communicated to the appellant. In this manner I have no hesitation to repel the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that delay of 3 years in this case was fatal to the case of the respondent Government.

9. I have examined the Inquiry Report which was provided to me by the representative of the Department at the time of hearing of this case and I am fully satisfied that the appellant was guilty of moral turpitude although there was no sufficient evidence to connect him criminally yet there was sufficient proof on record that he was guilty of very heinous offence particularly in view of the profession in which he was working. This being so Professor Dr. Fateh Khan Akhtar and Professor Dr. Kh. Muhammad Sadiq were fully justified to bring this aspect of his character on his A. C. R. The mere fact that earlier reports of Professor Dr. Fateh Khan Akhtar and Professor Dr. Kh. Muhammad Sadiq were in favour of the appellant but in no manner disallow the said officers to change their opinion about him when certain acts of omission or commission come to their notice in the latter part of their life.

10. With regard to the opinion of the Secretary, Health that the report was biased, I am not satisfied with the same because the Secretary, Health has failed to give reason for considering the opinion of the Report of the Reporting Officer as biased, which he was under obligation to do so when the countersigning authority i.e. the Principal had agreed with the Reporting Officer. His mere tick mark would show that these were mechanical and without application of mind. However, this controversy stands concluded when the matter went to the highest level to the Governor/M.L.A. and he was pleased to order that this aspect of the appellant's character be brought on the A.C.R. I have no doubt in my mind that Governor being the Executive Head of they Province coupled with the authority of M.L.A. was fully competent to pass such order and no exception can be taken to the same.

11. I have also given my careful consideration of the assessment of the Professor Malik Fateh Khan Akhtar and find that he has fully justified his assessment and I have no reason to disbelieve the same particularly the same are supported by Professor Dr. Khawaja Muhammad Sadiq, Principal, K.E.M.C., conveyed to the Secretary, Health, vide his Secret letter, dated 17-4-1985.

12. The result is I 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.