ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Allah Rakha, Head Clerk, Land Reforms Branch, Deputy Commissioner, Office, Faisalabed, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order of respondent No. 2 dated 3rd October 1981, read with the order of respondent No. 1 dated 2nd March, 1981, be set aside and the adverse entry recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1972 be allowed to be expunged and held to be of no effect whatsoever.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Captain Raza Ali, the then Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad recorded the following adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant for the year 1975, communicated to the appellant vide order No. 114- A/ Estt. Dated 10th April, 1973:- "Slow, Lacking in interest--- and inefficient. Should be severely warned."
The appellant made a representation against these adverse remarks which was rejected by the then Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad vide his order dated 30th November, 1973. The appellant made another representations in 1979 which was turned down by the Deputy Commiss--petitioner, Faisalabad vide his order dated 7th June, 1979, and conveyed to the appellant vide No. 3342-E/ Estt.
12th. June, 1979. This order of the Deputy Commissioner, was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, who vide office order No. 9381/Acctt., dated 5th May, 1980 referred the representation of the appellant to the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad for fresh orders. As the representation of the appellant against these adverse remarks had already been considered by the then Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad Mr. G. R. Piracha and stood rejected on 30th November, 1973, hence Mr. Abdul Waheed, Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad through his order dated 2nd March, 1981 held that the order passed by Mr. G. M. Piracha was final and he was not competent to review the same. In consequence thereof the representation of Allah Rakha was filed. On this the appellant made an other representation to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division Sargodha which was filed vide his order dated, 3rd October, 1981, conveyed to the appellant on 17th October, 1981 with the remarks that there is no legal provision under which the Commissioner can entertain this representation. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued this case on this main issue that the then Reporting Officer, Colony Assistant had given him satisfactory report but the Deputy Commissioner had given these adverse remarks of his own accords which were not in accordance with the report of the first Reporting Officer, Thus these remarks are liable to be expunged keeping in view the report given by the first Repor--ting Officer. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that these remarks be expunged on this ground. The learned District Attorney on the other band controverted these points by submitting that the Deputy Commissioner was competent to give these remarks regarding the work of the appellant; being the 1st countersigning officer. Further more he submitted that the appeal is time barred as the appellant could only make one representation against these remarks as laid down in are. 42 of the booklet entitled "Instructions about Confidential Reports,' Published by S & GAD (Regulation Wing), Government of West Pakistan vide its letter No. S (R) 3542/4-8/65- S. O. XIII, dated 12th February, 1968 to be read with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. His representation stood rejected in the year 1973. The appellant felt conten--ted for 42 years and then he made the 2nd representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and a representation to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which were decided in 1979. He made again another representation to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha in 1981. Thus, agitating this issue time and again was uncalled for as his representation stood rejected finally in the year 1973 by the then Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad whose order was final within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Thus, this appeal is time, barred and is not maintainable.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the appellant's counsel, the learned District Attorney and have also perused the record submitted by the respondents. As per practice of this Tribunal, we have seen the comments given on appellant's representation by Capt.
Raza Ali, the then Deputy Commissioner, who had recorded these adverse remarks, he had categorically stated that these adverse remarks were recorded after seeing the actual work of the official and after due consideration. There was nothing to revise the opinion. These views were upheld by his successor, Mr. G. M. Piracha, the then Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and later on by Mr. Abdul Waheed, Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad. His representations were also placed twice before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha who did not interfere with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the representations before him were not competent. Keeping these facts in view, we do not find any justification to interfere with the adverse remarks recorded by Capt. Raza Ali, the then Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad and subsequent impugned orders whereby the representations of the appellant were rejected. We are not inclined to go into the detail of the objections raised by the learned District Attorney regarding plea of limitation as this appeal even does not stand on merits.
7. In view of the above analysis, we hold that there is in merits in this appeal, which is dismissed as such. However, there will be no order as to costs.