Find a Lawyer

Case No. 852/1228 of 1984, decided on 31st July, 1985.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Adverse remarks in A. C. R.‑‑Expunction of‑‑Reporting Officer having no malice or prejudice against civil servant‑‑Such remarks fully substantiated by specific instances including confessional statement of such servant‑‑Service Tribunal declined to interfere with impugned adverse remarks in circumstances.

Riaz Anwar for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

. ‑‑Younis Henry Marck has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran and A.D.C.(G), Multan as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the year 1983 be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Mr. Younis Henry Marck was given the following adverse remarks by the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1983:‑

(i) Referencing and paging or notes and correspondence is poor.

(ii) Keeping files and papers in tidy condition is poor.

(iii) Promptness and accuracy in disposing of work is poor.

(iv) Knowledge of procedure and regulations is poor.

(v) Amenability to discipline is poor.

(vi) Skill in drafting is poor.

(vii) Knowledge of typing is poor.

(viii) He is unfit for promotion.

(ix) There were reports about his charging in excess of the copying charges for supply of copies.

General Remarks: He is not fit for retention in service."

Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Multan for expunction of the adverse remarks but the same was rejected, vide his order, dated 2‑10‑1984. Hence, this appeal.

3. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the impugned adverse remarks are unjustified because the Reporting Officer while recording adverse remarks did not keep in view that the appellant was fresh entrant in the service. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the appellant was appointed as a copiest and his job was to prepare the copy of the order and handed over the same to the litigants after collecting necessary copying fee, in shape of stamps. No cash payment was involved and as such allegation of charging excess fee was not justified. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the appellant was not concerned with reference to paging, noting etc. of the correspondence. Similarly the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellant did not claim to know the typing at the time of his recruitment, and he could not learn the typing in a short period. The learned counsel for the appellant while concluding his arguments stated that so far as the discipline was concerned the appellant was always punctual and conduct of the appellant was proper regarding performance of duties and as such he could not be considered as unfit for retention in service as well as for promotion.

4. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal on the strength of report of the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran who had recorded the adverse remarks. He explained that the concerned Assistant Commissioner had in detail justified the adverse remarks contributed by him. For instance the Assistant Commissioner appended a copy of the statement of the appellant admitting his inefficiency and laxity for not despatching the summon etc. and the appellant begged pardon. Likewise the Assistant Commissioner mentioned the specific cases to show that in a raid conducted on the appellant, blank stamps without showing the name of the purchasers were found in his possession much excess to the copying fee. This reflected that not only it was objectionable to keep blank stamp but it was also a modes operandi for fleeding the litigants who applied for the copies. In the same manner the District Attorney on the strength of the report of the Assistant Commissioner stated that the remaining adverse remarks concerned the appellant about discipline, lack of integrity and unfit for promotion were justified.

5. We have carefully considered the points so raised by both the parties. We have also perused the relevant record particularly the report of the Assistant Commissioner alongwith its annexures and are of the opinion that the Assistant Commissioner had no malice or any prejudce against the appellant and has fully substantiated the adverse remarks by quoting the specific instances including the confessional statement of the appellant.

6. Hence we see no ground to interfere with the impugned adverse remarks and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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.