' Mr. Muhammad Bashir Ahmad now Magistrate at Attock has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, for expunction of his two adverse entries given against him by his two superiors.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that both these adverse entries and the orders dated 12th November, 1970 (Annexure 'A') and orders dated 20th July, 1976 (Annexure 'C') and the final order dated 28th June, 1981 (Annexure 'F') be set aside.
3. The brief facts of the case are that Mr. Muhammad Bashir Ahmad when he was working as Magistrate 1st Class at Lyallpur under Mr. Masud Mufti, the then Deputy Commissioner he was given an adverse entry for the period from 1st January, 1968 to 2nd August, 1968 as under : "Your integrity intellectual and moral and sense of responsibility general are below average. You had a general reputation of being corrupt. You should take care to improve your reputation. There were complaints against you at your former station of posting. You should guard against the reputation of being vindictive and corrupt.",
4. The appellant while working as Magistrate 1st Class, Sargodha received another adverse entry for a period from 1st January, 1974 to 21st May, 1974 from Mr. A. Z. K. Sherdil the then Deputy Commissioner as under :- {{TABLE}} "Ability to plan, organise and supervise work. Quality and output of work persever- ance and devotion to duty.
Integrity
(a) Intellectual.
Moral. Below Average Sense of responsibility :-
(a) General.
In financial matters.
Interest in social welfare. Is inclined to treat this as- pect of his duty as routine function. Behaviour with public Is inclined to be arrogant. Comparing him with other officers the same grade. Of Below Average.
Fitness for further promotion. Unfit for further promotion, has reached his ceiling.
' A man of average intelligence who failed to impress me as a sound officer. Did not know much about the revenue administration. Lacked self-discipline and as such enjoyed a bad reputation for moral indiscretion." {{TABLE}}
5. The appellant made a representation against both these entries which have been finally rejected. Hence this appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned D A, assisted by Raja Kalim Ullah, Under Secretary SGAD & I Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted as under :-
(1) The gross violation of the mandatory provisions of the rules with regard to the initiation of such reports have been committed.
(2) Further violation with regard to the communication of those entries has also occurred in this case.
(3) These remarks are contrary to the facts as well as the performance of the appellant for these periods.
7. On the other band the learned D.A. Has submitted that although there is no record of the comments of Mr. Masud Mufti on the file whereas Mr. A. Z. K. Sherdil has commented with regard to his observations and has confirmed his cogent views. However it has been stated by him that these reports were initiated late due to extraordinary heavy work which he was required to face at that particular time. The learned D A has further submitted that this officer has been reported adversely twice by two different officers at two different occasions, therefore, if any any must at all was attributed against one the same cannot be used against the other unless and until the appellant is able to prove that he has also brought on the record similar or different allegations against the said officer.
8. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has produced before me the relevant rule 34 regarding contents in book "instruction about confidential reports". It will be useful to reproduce para. 2 and para. 34 page 13 as under :-
2. When should a Report be written. The report shall relate to a calender year. It shall be initiated in the first week of January by the initiating authority and forwarded to the higher authority in the same week. The higher authority shall give its remarks within one week. In case it is necessary to send the report to a third authority it will be sent to that authority immediately. The final authority shall also record its views within a week. Time schedule has been laid down so that the remarks are based on the performance of Government Servants during the calender year to which they relate.
Otherwise consciously or sub-consciously subsequent events can contribute towards the formation of opinion in respect of the past year. Thus the reports should be completed within the month of January each year.
34. The timely communication of adverse remarks is of paramount importance. The authorities competent to communicate the adverse remarks should ensure that the adverse remarks are communicated without fail to person concerned by the end of June. Failure to do so will attract disciplinary action against the person responsible for the delay.
9. Relying on these instructions as laid down above the learned counsel has submitted (that Mr. Masud Mufti initiated his report five months after the transfer of the appellant which he was required to do so immediately before his transfer as laid down in the rules. According to learned counsel the communication of these remarks was made after one year 10 months and 12 days.
Similarly he has pointed out that Mr. A.Z.K. Sherdil has accepted in his own report that he initiated this entry after one year and three months and was communicated to the appellant after two years and three months. The learned counsel has laid emphasis on these omissions by submitting that these violations itself are sufficient to nullify these adverse entries without even going into the mertits of the case. For this he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Re Ghulam Muhammad v. Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura etc. (I) and 1981 SCMR 392 as well as 1981 SCMR 840 as well as decision of Lahore High Court in Re : Muhammad Azam Khan v. Government of the Punjab (2).
10. I have carefully attended to the arguments addressed to me by the parties and have also perused the citations referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant. Before I enter into the discussion on the merits of the case I will first like to attend to a patent defect which is apparent from the record hitting the case of the appellant on the point of limitation. The appellant himself has placed on record as Annexure 'F' a confidential letter from the Government of the Punjab S&GAD & I Department at page 24 of the file addressed to the appellant with regard to the decision on his representation for the expunction of the adverse remarks. The perusal of this letter reveals that the appellant was conveyed the decision taken on his representation vide department's Memo. No, CA/ DSP(S&GAD)-1(34)70-M. 121/c dated 20th May 1971, SO(C)1-57/77 dated 29th September, 1977 and SO(C)1-57/77 dated 22nd March, 1979. Although the appellant had the knowledge from 1971, as well as in the year 1977, but conclusively this chapter stood closed in the year 1979. There is nothing on the record to show why the appellant did not agitate in time before this Tribunal against the said grievance and filed this appeal only on 22nd July, 1981. This would clearly prove that even from the latest larder of 22nd March, 1979, his appeal would be barred by time by about 7 months and particularly when there is no application on the record for condonation of delay. The attempt of the appellant to treat Annexure 'F' as final order would hardly be tenable. In fact this letter has informed the appellant that his representation for expunetion of the adverse remarks conveyed to him had been rejected in the year 1971, 1977 and this matter stood closed in the year 1979. Annexures '0', 'H' and 9' fully support this contention of mine. It would be very difficult for the appellant to prove it otherwise. As the appellant had not chosed to have the adverse remarks against him expunged earlier in time, I am of the positive conclusion that the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation.
11. With regard to the merits of this case what I observe is that in the year 1968 Mr. Masud Mufti, the then Deputy Commissioner, referred to certain propensities and predilictions of the appellant and found that he had a reputation of being vindictive and corrupt. Mr. A.Z.K. Sherdil full after six years considered the appellant a person of 'average intelligence' who lacked discipline and enjoyed bad reputation for moral {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1981 PLC (CS) 581 (2) 1981 PLC (C S) 434 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' indiscretion. Despite the lapse of full six years, it seems that the defects pointed out by Mr. Majid Mufti persisted with the appellant who once again was assessed in the terms in which he was assessed by the predecessor of Mr. A. Z. K. Sherdil in the year 1968. It would be very difficult to ignore the opinions of two different officers at too different times which point out to common flaws in the personality of the appellant. In this way it will not be possible to accept the argument of the appellant that Mr. A. Z. K. Sherdil had given this opinion due to certain personal malice as it is on the record in the year 1968 that these defects so pointed out by Mr. A. Z. K. Sherdil were very much there. I also find that there is no allegation of malice or personal animus against Mr. Majid Mufti by the appellant. So it would be safe to conclude that the allegations so made by the appellant against Mr. A. Z. K. Sherdil were just an afterthought as to bias the mind of this appellate Tribunal against the opinion given by Mr. A. Z. K. Sherdil.
12. With regard to the legal point so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Government of Punjab and others it would be sufficient to say that the facts of that case are different than the present one. In the case of Muhammad Zaman it was found by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court that although the adverse entries against him stood expunged the same were made basis of withdrawal of earlier recommendations by the P. S. C. The learned Judege was of the opinion that when the entire data of said Muhammad Zaman was available with the P. S. C. Including his service record the P. S. C. Was not entitled to withdraw the recommendations when it found that there was an adverse entry in the character roll of said Muhammad Zaman and that too had already stood expunged. By looking into The Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Ahmad Kamaluddin (2), which is a basic judgment empowering this Tribunal to deal with such cases, their Lordships have observed that the instructions with regard to the recording of the remarks, their communication and expunction would have the status of rules made under the Civil Servants Act, and would be determinative of the terms and conditions of service. This authority has no direct application to the present case before me and the only advantage which the appellant could possibly draw from this pronouncement would be that the superior officers of a civil servant while giving adverse remarks in his character roll should also adhere to the rules and regulations made in this behalf. In this way the appellant wants to take advantage of my own judgment reported as Ghulam Muhammad v. Deputy Commissioner Sheikhupura etc. I have taken into consideration the delayed recording by the Reporting Officer and also late communication of the same to Ghulam Muhammad. I fully remember the facts of that case and do not feel to equate the same with the case of the present appellant. The service record of Ghulam Muhammad did not convey the impression that the adverse entries made against him were of a kind which I find in the case of the appellant and that too by two different officers on two different occasions with a considerable lapse of time in between the two opinions.
Similarly, the perusal of 1980 PLC (C S) 262 reveals that it only relates to the competence of a counter-signing officer and hardly comes near the facts of the present case. I am also Conscious of the fact that the instructions clearly laid down certain time limit for initiating reports and {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1981 SCMR 392 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' also made it obligatory on the Reporting Officer and the superior authorities to communicate the same to the civil servant concerned who has been so adversely reported upon within a prescribed limit of time, but it nowhere lays down that the delay even if explained will go to the roots o the case and a delayed communication or a delayed report will lose all its affects or would be of no consequence in the eye of law. Mr. A. Z. K. Sherdil in his comments has accepted that the report was initiated quit late due to the heavy work at that time in which he was engaged. It would be a matter between the Government and the Reporting Officer as the latter would be responsible to show cause to the Government as to why the entries were initiated with delay and communicated after considerable lapse of time but had in no way destroyed the value of the entries against a civil servant if it was found that the same had meanings and justification keeping in view all the pros and cons of the case.
13. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly,