Find a Lawyer

Case No. 633/326 of 1986, decided on 13^th September, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Adverse remarks‑‑Appeal against‑‑Assessment of Reporting Officer supported by personal knowledge and positive instances quoted by countersigning Officer‑‑Contention that past record was unblemished not substantiated by record‑‑interference by Tribunal, was refused and appeal dismissed in circumstances.

Sh. Muhammad Hanif for Appellant.

Manzoor Hussain. District Attorney for Respondent.

‑‑Sh. Abdul Qadeer, Senior Clerk, Settlement Branch, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order, dated 3‑9‑1985 whereby respondent No. 1 rejected the representation of the appellant regarding expunction of adverse remarks in his A . C . R . for the year 1984. He has impleaded the Competent Authority through Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and the Assistant Secretary (General) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the adverse remarks so recorded against him in the A.C.R. for the year ending 31‑12‑1984 be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was communicated on 20‑4‑1985 that his work and conduct has been adversely assessed for the year ending 31‑12‑1984. He filed a representation against the same and was informed by letter, dated 3‑9‑1985 that the said representation has been rejected by the competent authority. 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 perused the record of this case with their assistance.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the A.C.R. which has been adversely reported as under:‑‑

"4. Observance of office procedure:

(i) Referencing and paging of "Not Satisfactory".

notes and correspondence.

(ii) Keeping files and papers "Not Satisfactory".

in tidy conditions.

(iii) Promptness and accuracy in "Not Satisfactory".

disposing of work.

5. Observation on:

(i) Intelligence. "Poor".

(ii) Knowledge of procedure t "Negligent".

regulations.

(iii) Punctuality. "Not Satisfactory".

(iv) Amenability to discipline. "Not amenable to discipline".

8. Fitness for promotion. "Not fit for Promotion."

General Remarks:‑ He is not attending the office regularly.

Verbal and written warnings have

proved futile. An incorrigiable official.

Does not seem to be interested in

service."

General remarks by "A habitual absentee. Not interested

Higher Officers. in service. He is doing property Dealing

work, out of office."

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order as well as the adverse remarks are against law and facts and great injustice has been done to the appellant. He has based his claim on the fact that in the years 1982 and 1983 his reports were good and there was no justification to give him adverse report in the next following year. He has also relied on the fact that the Reporting Officer failed to quote a single instance on which he has based his remarks.

6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has relied on the comments submitted by S.M. Hamid, Secretary (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab on behalf of the respondents as well as the report of the Colony Assistant, dated 17‑3‑1986 addressed to the Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore while giving justification for upholding the adverse assessment.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties that one stand of the respondent is that the appellant's increment was withheld in 1971 on the charges that he was marked present by proxy with his connivance which was proved. It has also been submitted that as a result of one departmental enquiry his salary was reduced from Rs.145 per mensem to Rs.140 and it was further reduced by two stages to Rs.130. With regard to his earlier previous good reports it has been submitted by the respondent Government that those reports were given by different officers. We have also seen the justification given by Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khalid, Colony Assistant Sargodha who has submitted that Abdul Qadeer, appellant was posted in the settlement Branch but he was in the habit of absenting himself from the office and the Superintendent incharge has been warning him off and on but to no effect. On the said basis, the said Colony Assistant summoned the appellant twice and asked him to be punctual. According to him, the appellant admitted himself that he is running a property dealing office outside the Board of Revenue's Office and was attending his business on the said office which was more elaborated than service. It has also been further mentioned that he was personally asked to show the files dealt with by him during his posting but he failed.

8. After going through the comments of the Department as well as the justification given by the Colony Assistant what we find is that the stand of the appellant cannot be accepted that nobody counselled him or, any specific instances were available with the respondent Department against him. Similarly, his claim that he has unblemished record of service also does not find substantiation from his earlier record.

9. This being so, we have no justification to interfere with the assessment made by the Reporting Officer as well as signed by the ,13 countersigning Authority as the Colony Assistant has given positive instances and has quoted his personal knowledge with regard to the conduct and ,performance of the appellant.

10. In view of the above we do find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which is valid and appeal is dismissed as being without any merits. However, there will be no orders 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.