Find a Lawyer

Case No.510/265 of 1985.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (1X of 1974)‑‑----

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.4‑‑Adverse remarks in A.C.R.-‑‑Expunction of‑‑Where assessment of civil servant was made in accordance with assessment given in columns for such purpose, there would be held no inconsistency with such assessment by Reporting Officer‑‑Countersigning authority's assessment would be justifiable in view of such Authority making on spot inspection and sending material used by Civil servant to Building Research Station wherein such material used for building was found to be of inferior quality‑‑In view of justification of assessment of work by Reporting Officer as well as by Countersigning Authority, there being no merit in appeal, same was dismissed in circumstances.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

. ‑‑Muhammad Humayun Khan, Executive Engineer, 2nd Medical Provincial Buildings Division, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned letter, dated 8‑1‑1985, 21‑5‑1985 and 25‑7‑1985, be set aside and the adverse remarks be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was adversely assessed for the period of 71 months viz. from 1‑1‑1984 to 15‑8‑1984, as under:‑

"Part II

Understanding and tolerance. Below Average.

Part III

Acceptance of responsibility. Below Average.

Part IV

Work (A) Output. Below Average.

Part VII

His work in respect of Judges Residences in GOR I was not found satisfactory. It invited adverse comments."

The appellant submitted his representation against the said remarks which was rejected, vide letter, dated 21‑5‑1985, which has been communicated to the appellant by letter, dated 25‑7‑1985. 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 with regard to understanding and tolerance which has been categorised as Below Average, the appellant's Grading 'C' in this column was contradictory to Grading 'B' under columns 12 and 13 of Part III of the same report. With regard to the acceptance of responsibility, it has been argued that it is also inconsistent with the same Reporting Officer's remarks in columns 7, 8 and 11 of Part III of the same report. With regard to Work (a) Output as Below Average learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's work was fully satisfactory as the same was declared as such by the Reporting Officer in Part V. With regard to the complaint that his work was not found satisfactory in respect of Judges Residences it has been submitted that this assessment was incorrect. It has been vehemently argued that the appellant's entire service record was unblemished and the impugned adverse remarks were out of tune with the remarks given by other Reporting Officers as well as the same Reporting Officer in the A.C. Rs. of the appellant for the years 1975, 1982 and 1983.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has relied on the detailed comments filed by Mr. Tauqir Ahmad, Deputy Secretary, Communication and Works Department on behalf of the respondent and has submitted that the perusal of the A.C.R. would show that Reporting Officer did not commit any inconsistency as in Part II in column 5 he assessed the work of the appellant in column C. This part relates to the understanding and tolerance. Similarly no inconsistency can be attributed to the Reporting Officer while categorising the work of the appellant below average in Part III, column 5 as he has positively given him 'C' report in this respect. He has also drawn attention of the Tribunal to Part IV wherein it has been pointed out that against the work output and quality the assessment is categorized as 'C'. Similarly he has defended the remarks of the countersigning authority Mr. Abdus Salam, wherein it has been held that "He was headquartered in Lahore. His work in respect of Judges Residences in GOR I was not found satisfactory. It invited adverse comments." Learned District Attorney has submitted that no exception can be taken for these remarks as these were based on personal assessment of the Reporting Officer as well as countersigning authority. He has prayed that the appeal be dismissed as being without any merit. 4,

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced' by the parties and find that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was inconsistency with the assessment by the, Reporting officer, is without any substance, as the very perusal of the A. C. R. clearly reveals that the assessment so made was in accordance with the assessment given in columns so mentioned above. With regard to the assessment of the countersigning authority and grievance spelt out against the appellant for not attending properly to the construction work of Judges Residences in GOR‑I, Lahore, the countersigning authority has fully justified the same. The countersigning authority has submitted that this defect was pointed out to the appellant when Secretary, Communication and Works visited this work very '4requently alongwith the countersigning authority and he too expressed his dissatisfaction about the pace of progress and the way in which it was being handled. The countersigning authority i.e. Chief Engineer Buildings/North has stated that he directed the appellant to buy pre‑cast mosaic tiles from a particular source in Rawalpindi i.e. Messrs Capital Marbles Company, Islamabad, who had an automatic heavy plant imported from Italy and produced high quality tiles which had been used in the past and were being used on most of the public and private buildings like L.V.A. Buildings, Lahore Inter‑Continental Hotel etc. The appellant allowed hand made substandard tiles to be dumped to almost full quantity for the Judges' residence and started their use. This case to the notice of the Chief Engineer who ordered these tiles to be removed from the site in writing. These orders were not complied with and the appellant tried to use these, tiles by saying that they were also used in Hilton Hotel which was not correct. He also pretended that Buildings Research Station had no equipment and now how to test the strength of these tiles and these tiles could not be rejected without the test.

These tiles were eventually got attested from Buildings Research Station and the Test Report indicated that the tiles were of inferior quality.

8. In view of the justification of the assessment of work by the Reporting Officer as well as by the countersigning authority and Authority we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

A.A. 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.