' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Aslam Cheema, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Directorate of Anti-Corruption, Punjab has filed an appeal before this Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded S. P., Special Branch, Punjab, Lahore, Additional Inspector-General of Police, Special Branch, Punjab, Lahore and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 22nd February, 1979 and 6th January, 1980 communicated to the appellant on 9th February, 1980 be set aside and the adverse remarks be expunged. He has further prayed that he may be awarded the costs of the appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Islam Cheema the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks by Respondent No, 2 at the instance of Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 22nd February, 1979 marked confidential relating to year 1978 as under :-
10. Rating as Supervisory Officer in a Borrowing agency (Mention appointment) Inspector D.S.R. "Below average"
12. Rating as leader of men :
(a) Readiness of accept responsibility. "Below average"
14. Relations with colleagues : "Bad"
"Tends to be arrogant and indifferent to his duties."
' A representation was made by the appellant to respondent No, 3 for expunction of these adverse entries but the same were rejected by order dated 6th January, 1980 by respondent No,
3. The appellant was served with this order on 9th February, 1980.
3. 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 carefully with their assistance. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the remarks in columns 10, 12 and 14 were devoid of any factual basis. According to the learned counsel there was hardly a subordinate to the appellant - during the year 1978, therefore his rating as Leader of men has been assessed without any foundation. A similar objection was taken to remarks in Column 14 "Relation with colleagues" as the only colleague who served with the appellant was Mr. Ali Abad Shah who has in his affidavit averred that he had good relations with the appellant. As to his arrogance and indifferent to his duties, it was pointed out that there was no occasion during whole of the year when the appellant was guilty of this act. Reliance has been placed on Standing Order No, 32 wherein it has been clearly laid down that the entries made in the A.C.R. Should be objective, forthright and nnarriblguous both in favour as well as against a particular civil servant, 1
4. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has vehemently contested the contentions so made by the appellant and submitted that it was factually incorrect as the appellant was holding a rank of Inspector and could not without a staff. According to the learned District Attorney the appellant had sufficient ministerial staff under him and number of colleagues working alongwith him in the same office. It was further explained by the learned District Attorney that the adverse remarks were recorded in his A. C. R. Due to the following reasons
(i) that he did not at all read the stencil proof of D. S. R. No, 10, dated 10th January, 1978 which was not only full of spelling mistakes but also one complete line was also missing ;
(ii) that the Inspector did not attend the office on the night between llth/12th January, 1978 and the explanation given by him was flimsy.
(iii) Wo that the Inspector also failed to attend the office on the night between 14th/15th February, 1978 ;
(iv) that on 14th July, 1978 Constable Muhammad Iqbal orderly of D. S. R. Section went to the residence of this Inspector in the Jeep to bring Muhammad Aslam Cheema but some of the inmates told that the Inspector was sick. The Inspector did not inform of his illness on 13th July, 1978 nor he applied for any leave for that purpose. The appellant was fully conscious that it was incumbent upon him to inform the authorities so that an alternative arrangement bad to be made as the duties held by him were very important because D. S. R. Is Daily Situation Report and cannot be delayed in any manner whatsoever;
(v) that on 3rd November 1978 the appellant again absented himself and depsite an effort that was made to bring him to the duty, he suddenly disappeared without informing his superiors ;
(vi) that it was gross negligence insubordination on the part of the appellant as he was found on the night of 9th November, 1978 at 9-15 p.m. Absconding alongwith Mr. Ali Abid Shah a fact which was discovered by S. P. Himself (respondent No. 1). Considering all this it was submitted that the appellant's behavionr towards his seniors was always found indifferent a fact which is corroborated by so many events which occurred in his service. However, the learned D. A. Did not contribute to the stand taken in the end of the parawise comments filed by Respondent No, 3 that this Tribunal was not competent to entertain the appeals with regard to the expunction of adverse remarks in view of the latest Supreme Court Judgement in C.P.S.L.A. Province of the Punjab v.
Ahmed Kamal-ud-Din.
5. We have given or anxious thought to all the pros and coins of this case and we do not tind any justified reasons in view of the arguments advanced by the learned District Attorney to interfere with the adverse entries given by the Reporting Officer who we find had sufficient grounds to make the assessm ents as indicated in the impugned order. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any force. However, there will be 1/9 Orders as to the costs.