' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -The appellant Muhammad Azam Ali, Senior Clerk, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, by way of this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, has challenged the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year ending 31st December 1980 communicated to the appellant vide D.
0. No, 1257-81/184-Admn. Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 23rd February, 1981 issued by the Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, and the order dated 18th April, 1981 by which order the Secretary (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, had rejected his appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that by the office order dated 4th December, 1980 the Secretary (Establishment) observed that on the checking of the attendance register of the various branches, the appellant and 16 other officials of the Board of Revenue were found to have attended late on the dates shown against their names in the month of November, 1980. The appellant was shown to have attended the office late on 1st, 3rd, 4th, 13th and 15th of November, 1980. He was, therefore, called upon to explain his conduct in this behalf and submit his explanations. The appellant, in his explanation dated 27th December, 1980, submitted that he attended the office late on the said dates on account of his indisposed health and failure in getting the bus in time. On this the Assistant Secretary (General) in his D.
0. Dated 1st January, 1981 addressed to the Respondent No, 2, i,e, the Reporting Officer, observed that the Secretary (Establishment) had found the explanation submitted by the appellant as unsatisfactory and that he had desired the fact of the appellant's late arrival in the office to be incorporated in his Annual Confidential Report for the year, 1980. In compliance with the direction of the Secretary (Establishment) the Respondent No, 2, i,e, the Reporting Officer made the impugned adverse remarks while recording the Annual Confidential Report for the year, 1980. Ultimately through D. O. Dated 23rd February, 1981, the appellant was informed about impugned adverse remarks in the following terms :- "While there are a number of satisfactory remarks in your Annual Confidential Report for the year ending December 31, 1980, the following adverse remarks have also been recorded in the report :-
5. Observation : (iii)
' Punctuality General Remarks : ' Not satisfactory: He attended the office late in the month of November, 1980 on 1st, 3rd, 4th, 13th and 15th. The explanation furnished by him in this regard was found unsatisfactory."
' Against this the appellant filed an appeal before the Secretary (Establishment) which was rejected by the impugned order dated 18th April, 1981.
3. The learned counsel of the appellant has contended that the appellant had submitted reasonable explanations of his late coming for a few minutes only on 5 different dates in the month of November throughout the year 1980 and that he could not attend the office exactly in time on account of the circumstances which were beyond his control namely: that he was "indisposed" and on some occasions the "bus was late". It has further been submitted that throughout his six years' service, the appellant has had an unblemished record and but for the present entry the appellant has at his credit an excellent record of service and he being a post-graduate any adverse entry in the record of his service will mar his further career. It was also contended that the Reporting Officer who was the appellant's immediate boss did neither call any explanation of the appellant for his late attendance on the said dates, nor was the explanation submitted by the appellant ever considered by him ; and instead the entire matter of calling the explanation and its scrutiny was conducted and finalized by the appellate authority, i. e. The Secretary (Establishment), and, thus the Reporting Officer failed to apply his independent mind while recording the impugned adverse remarks. It is vehemently contended that the appellant was inadvertently late by a few minutes on the said dates and that the authorities had failed to mention the lack of diligence on the part of' the appellant in attending office as no timings were mentioned in the order dated 4th December, 1980 and that the punctuality of the appellant has been reported as "not satisfactory" for a report of the entire year 1980 when a plausible explanation for inadvertent late-coming only on the said five days in the month of November, 1980 had been submitted. The learned counsel also contended that according to Rule 18 Chapter 2 of Office Hand Book at the most the appellant's two days casual leave could have been forfeited in lieu of the alleged late attendance for 5 days. Rule 18 of the Office Hand Book reads as follows :- "18. Penalty for late attendance One day's casual leave shall be forfeited for every three days' late attendance in a month. At the end of such month, the Superintendent or the Assistant in charge of the Branch shall examine his attendance register and calculate the number of days on which the members of his branch attended late and report the result to the Assistant Secretary. "
' In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted, at the most two days casual leave of the appellant could have been forfeited.
4. As against the submissions of the learned counsel of the appellant, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the impugned adverse remarks have been incorporated on the basis of the factual verifications, and on finding the appellant's explanations as unsatisfactory by the Secretary (Establishment) and that no illegality was committed if the Secretary (Establishment) had called the explanation and had given a verdict over it and then had decided the appeal as well, It is further submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 18 Chapter 2 of Office Hand Book is an additional penalty and not that it can absolve the appellant from recording his late attendance in his Annual Confidential Report.
5. We have thoroughly considered the submissions made by the parties as well as the entire record of the appeal including the written statement submitted by the Department. It is not denied that the appellant had an excellent record throughout his six years' service but for the 5 days in question and that there was no dereliction of any sort in the performance of his duties throughout his service. We find that the Reporting Officer failed to exercise his independent mind in considering the explanations submitted by the appellant rather it is evident from the office order dated 4th December, 1980 and D.
0. Letter dated 1st January, 1981 that the explanation was called and considered by the Secretary (Establishment) and the Reporting Officer, viz. Sardar Saeed Ahmed Ex-Consolidation Officer, who was the appellant's immediate boss did not apply his independent mind in recording the impugned adverse remark and, in fact, he incorporated the same on the basis of observations of the Secretary &Establishment) communicated to him vide D.
0. Dated Is 4 January, 1981. In any case, we have seen the record of the appeal and have fully considered the explanations submitted by the appellant. We find that, in the circumstances of this case, the fact of his being indisposed and his failure to get the bus in time was a plausible explanation which the Reporting Officer as well as the Appellate Authority has failed to consider.
We are fortified in arriving at this conclusion by the unblemished career of the appellant throughout his six years' service.
6. We, therefore, accept the appeal and the impugned adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for the year ending December 31, 1980 communicated to the appellant vide D.
0. Letter date 23rd February, 1981 by the Assistant Secretary (Establishment) are expunged and consequently the order dated 18th April,. 1981 passed by the Secretary (Establishment) is also set aside.