Find a Lawyer

Case No.877/568 of 1985.

‑‑‑R. 4‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Adverse remarks in A.C.R.‑‑Expunction of‑‑Reporting Officer giving good reports to civil servant for three consecutive years‑‑Reporting Officer, held, would be under obligation to give some positive proof or instance to justify that his earlier assessment of three consecutive years regarding integrity of such civil servant was liable to be changed‑‑There would be no justification to maintain impugned adverse remarks in view of fact that immediate officer of such civil servant had found his integrity as average both intellectual as well as general‑‑Reporting Officer himself having found integrity of civil servant on previous occasions as above board, would not be justified to change his opinion overnight‑‑While accepting appeal Service Tribunal set aside impugned remarks and ordered same to be expugned from A.C.R. of civil servant.

Khalid Javed Saleemi for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

--‑‑Abdul Matloob Khan, Resident Magistrate, Pindi Bhattian, , Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Lahore and Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala, in the year 1984, he was informed by letter, dated 11‑8‑1985, that he has been adversely commented upon ,by respondent No.2 for the year 1984 as under:

"His overall reputation was not good."

He filed representation before respondent No.l with the prayer that impugned remarks be expunged. However, respondent No.l has rejected the representation, vide order, dated 28‑11‑1985. 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 record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Mr. Shafqat Mahmood, the then Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, who has recorded the impugned adverse remarks had appreciated and lauded the services of the appellant during the relevant period on various occasions. He has placed a list of letters with the appeal. He has further relied on the report of the said Deputy Commissioner, from July, 1981 to December, 1981 and from January, 1982 to July, 1982, relating to the period of posting of the appellant at Dera Ghazi Khan. He has also relied on another report of the appellant from 19‑7‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983, and has submitted that none has been conveyed to him adverse. It has been vehemently argued that Mr. Shafqat Mahmood had no reason to change his earlier opinion overnight to dubb the appellant as having bad reputation.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has relied on the justification of Mr. Shafqat Mahmood, dated 31‑10‑1985, sent by him from America, where he was stationed and has submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner has fully justified his assessment.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant's contention that Mr. Shafqat Mahmood, under whom he had the opportunity to work during July, 1981 to December, 1981 and July, 1983 to December, 1983, did not find his reputation as not good and he agreed with the excellent reports given to him by his immediate officers. We also further find that Mr. Shafqat Mahmood also observed that there were complaints of corruption against him, but none was substantiated. We also further find that Mr. Shafqat Mahmood in his comments that the earlier service record of the appellant does not bear out that he had many adverse entries against him. We have verified the record and find that it was only in the year 1981 that Mr. Pervaiz Sultan, A.C. City Lahore, observed that he was transferred on complaints, required to mend ways and the same was conveyed to him, that entry stands in his A.C.R. and there is no other entry in the A.C.Rs. and in this manner, we can safely observe that the comments given by the learned Deputy Commissioner are partly correct. In view peculiar circumstances of this case what we find from the record is that the Reporting Officer has given him good reports for the three consecutive years viz. 1981, 1982 and 1983 and has changed his mind in 1984. We would like to reproduce para. 23 of the booklet containing instructions about A.C.R. as under:‑

"23. Reporting on integrity‑ Integrity is the most important trait of character of a Government Servant. It should be assessed without fear or favour. The report should not be vague but definite. An officer may be reasonably believed to be corrupt,

(a) he has a general and persistent reputation of being corrupt; or

(b) any of his dependents or any other person through him or on his behalf is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his own sources of income or which he cannot account for satisfactorily;

Explanation.‑‑ The dependents will include wife/wives, children, step‑children parents, sisters and, minor brothers, residing with and wholly dependent on the reported officer; or

(c) he has assumed a style of living beyond his means.

In view of the above par*., learned Deputy Commissioner was under' obligation to give some positive proof or instance in order to justify that his earlier assessments of three consecutive years regarding integrity of the appellant, was liable to be changed. We have also perused para.

2 of the Booklet containing the said instructions, which clearly lays down and makes it obligatory on the Reporting Officer to make assessment of the calendar year in which he is required to comment. In this manner, it can be safely presumed that he would not base his assessment on the earlier record of service of the appellant so that his mind should remain unbiased about the work of the period in which assessment is being made by him.

8. In view of the above we do not find any justification to maintain the impugned adverse entries when we find that Ch. Nusrat Hayat, Assistant Commissioner, who was his immediate officer, has found his integrity as average both intellectual as well as general and has also commented that he did good job at Kamanke in obviating encroachments, streamlining the traffic and has been useful for executive, particularly when Mr. Shafqat Mahmood himself has assessed his integrity above board for full 3 years from 1981 to 1983, when the appellant had the privilege to work under him and to change the opinion overnight is unjustified.

9. Resultantly the appeal is accepted, impugned orders are set aside and impugned remarks are directed to be expunged from the A.C.R. of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs.

A.A. 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.