Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 944/599 of 1985, decided on 13th September, 1986.'
‑‑‑R. 4‑‑Adverse remarks‑‑Appeals for expunction‑ ‑Assessment of Reporting Officer fully justified‑‑Interference, in circumstances, refused by Tribunal.
Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqi for Appellant.
Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents.
‑‑Dr. Muhammad Irfan Zahid has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Report of the year 1983. He has impleaded the Deputy Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Punjab, Lahore (Ch. Muhammad Bashir) and Director General (Extension) Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the adverse remarks so conveyed to him be expunged.
3. Brief history of the case is that the appellant was conveyed on 2‑11‑1985 that the Reporting Officer and Countersigning Officer has given him adverse assessment for the year 1983. He has filed an appeal which was considered and rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have also perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has been holding additional charges which shows that the appellant was quite efficient in his duties and attained more work than his original job. He has argued that the appellant has also been given two experience certificates by the Director Live‑stock Barani Area. It has been further pointed out that the same Deputy Director Respondent No. 1 gave him honorarium which would show that he accepted his efficiency as such.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has also produced justification, dated 26‑11‑1984 given by the Reporting Officer. According to him it was personal observations of the Reporting Officer who found the appellant absent from the more sensitive duty and also further found that he avoided to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to him. With regard to the grant of honorarium it was submitted that his name was recommended by the Deputy Director not as a token of efficiency but the same was given to him in general alongwith the list of other workers who attended the Horse and Cattle Show.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and find that the justification given by the Deputy Director (Extension), dated 26‑11‑1984 is quite conclusive as well as satisfactory and this Tribunal does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the same. It has been observed by the said Reporting Officer that the appellant was attending the duties on the water supply for livestock A and as well as for the livestock breeders of the breeders camp. According to him it was seriously noticed that he did not perform the duty efficiently in the spirit which was needed to be carried out. It was also found that he remained absent from the said camp and was a casual visitor to the duty which was a sensitive nature.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as being without any merit. However, there will be no orders as to costs.
A.B. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer