' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J. --- By this civil petition, leave to appeal is sought against judgment dated 16.11.2010 in Appeal No. 397(K)CS/2005, passed by Federal Service Tribunal (in short the Tribunal), whereby, said appeal of the petitioner challenging the order dated 5.8.2005 of the competent authority, thereby refusing to expunge adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 2004, was dismissed, being devoid of merits.
2. We have heard the petitioner as well as Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned ASC for the respondents and with their assistance perused the whole material placed on record. The Tribunal, while examining the grievance of the petitioner in the context of adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2004 recorded by the competent authority, has dilated upon paragraph No. 5 of its judgment, which reads as follows:-
5. We have considered the above arguments carefully and perused the record. Perusal of record shows that the appellant during his entire stay with the department remained prejudice towards service discipline and other official obligations and did not perform his duties diligent,/ and avoided it by availing leave on one or the other pretext as during the period from January 2003 to December 2004, he availed 361 days leave. Besides above, due to his intriguing habits, the working environment in the computer section, remained strained and in-conducive. The remarks was incorporated in the letter dated 11.10.2004, containing his application for transfer. During his stay, a number of complaints were received and a blame game started to malign each other due to internal wrangling, but after transfer of the appellant, management took sigh of relief, which entangled in unnecessary correspondence due to rift amongst the computer staff. It has also come on record that prior to posting of appellant, he was issued moral warnings on diminishing performance and trend of his negative attitude, vide letter dated 09.06.2001 available on record.
The reporting officer, while evaluating the ACR had appreciated the evidences/circumstances, causing prejudice. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the appellant has been promoted, therefore, the adverse remarks be struck down, does not appear to be factually correct as, admittedly, the appellant was promoted in the year 2000 and the adverse remarks pertained to the year 2004."
3. The petitioner, when confronted with the above line of reasoning of the Tribunal, maintaining the order dated 5.8.2005, could not refute that such findings of fact are duly supported from the case record. His only submission was that due opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him by the departmental authority as well as the Tribunal. We are not impressed by such submission of the petitioner as he was duly represented before the Tribunal through a counsel, who has argued the case on his behalf. Moreover, the reasons recorded by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of relevant record, justifying recording of adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 2004.
4. In view of the above, we find no substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.