' M. SALEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-Syed Nazar Hussain Shah has filed this appeal under sections 4 and 8 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, against the orders of compulsory retirement dated 13th March, 1972. The appellant who was Tehsildar was compulsory retired under M. L. R.
114.
2. We have heard both the parties and seen the record of the appellant. The adverse record of the appellant reproduced below :- {{TABLE}} #TBS Period Integrity 1935 Dishonest #TBE Pen picture A very bad man indeed. His reputation regarding honesty is very bad. His treatment towards muhajirs has been very bad. He should not be recommended for next increment. Be should not get his next increment. #TBS 10-3-1955 to 30-6-1955 1957 1963 Doubtful. #TBE Expression poor I agree. There was some unconfirmed complaints against his integrity in connection with fraudulent allotment of Government lands and his name was mentioned by the police during investigation, though nothing tangible has yet come out against him. #TBS 1964 There , were complaints against him that he has acquired lot of land in the name of his relatives. The matter is under investigation. #TBE A disgruntled, but experienced. Tehsildar with good knowlege of Revenue work.
His knowledge of criminal work is average. He is co-operative only complaint against him has acquired lot of land in his own tehsil in the name of his relatives. The matter is under investigation. #TBS 1-1-1965 to 19-7-1965 There were however a large number of complaints against him that he had settled large area of land in the name of his relatives the interest of other claimants. #TBE He was found to have delayed certain reports on evacuee account of some against extraneous influences. He also acted contrary to the directions of the Collector in a case of Mutation which cast grave suspicion on his bana fide in the matter. For some odd reasons complaints pursue him 3 1 2 1-1-1966 Below average. To 22-10-1966 28-5-1970 to 30-12-1970 wherever he goes. Many of these remarks unsubstantiated. Nevertheless he needs watching. Not dutiful and hard working. Your work as C.
0. Has not been found satisfactory, {{TABLE}} ' The appellant has contended that taken as a whole, the record is good and since most of the adverse remarks have not been conveyed to the appellant they should not be taken into consideration. According to the appellant, conveyance of adverse remarks is essential as per instructions of the Government. In or opinion non-observance of Government instructions does not render the adverse remarks to being considered as expunged or of no consequence. We cannot lose sight of the fact that M. L. R. 114 was a supra constitutional Act which evidently override the departmental instructions. We notice that the record of the appellant is to a considerable extent adverse and thus the action taken by the Government against the appellant is justified and this is not a fit case for interrefence by the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.