S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). - Javed Dastagir Mirza has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974; against the order of the respondent No. 4 dated 22-9-1981, by which he was conveyed adverse entries of his work and conduct for the period from 28-12-1980 to 12-7-1981, given to him by the Reporting Officer A.C. In his case.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that adverse entries so given to him be expunged.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department, and have perused the parawise comments so filed by the' respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks related to the following: Capacity to guide and train sub- ordinates :B. Average Perseverance and devotion to duty) co-operation and tact . . . Poor Sense of responsibility (General), Interest in Social Welfare . . . , . .Is inclined to treat this aspect of his duty as routine function, Punctuality----------------------Unpunctual.
Comparing with other officers of the same grade . . . . ---------------.B. Average.
He shows complete lack of appli--cation and devotion to duty.
Remarks by the Deputy Commissioner.
"Unfortunately the officer could not adjust himself at Kahuta and frequently slipped away to Lahore.
Despite all sincere efforts Icould not desciple him."
It has been submitted that the observations made by the A. C. Seems to be without realising that these were being given by him out of context. It has been argued that there was hardly any subordinate under the appellant to whom he was required to train or guide. Learned counsel has pointed out that this column should have been left blank and the entry of below average by the Reporting Officer clearly indicates that either he was biased or he could not understood the prerequisite of this qualification. With regard, to the qualities i.e. Conduct, co-operation punctuality etc., it has been vehemently argued that the opinion of the Reporting Officer stands fully repelled by the affidavit of the appellant supported by joint affidavit of President, Joint President and Secretary of entire Abadi of Kahuta who confirmed the integrity, honesty, competency and straightforwardness of the appellant.
4. With regard to the interest in social welfare the appellant has appended a certificate from Mr. Muhammad Zakar Qureshi, Minister for Auqaf and Social Welfare and Zakat Department Punjab, in which the work of the appellant has been highly commended. It has also been argued that the reporting officer who gave him this special report at the time of his promotion, was a raw hand who had hardly six months regular service to his credit, whereas the appellant was a regular officer with 13 years long experience in the profession. Learned counsel has also brought to our notice that appellant has been given A.I. A.C.R. By the Director Zakat for the year 1981-82, the period during which he has worked under him.
5. We have given our anxious though to the arguments so advanced in support of the appellant's case and find lot of force in the same. The Mem--bers of Bar of Kahuta where the officer was posted are always the best judge of his performance, integrity, punctuality and straightforwardness and if they with one voice after he had left the station, declare and vouch safe that the incumbent possessed all these qualities in abundence, the same cannot be ignored. We have made sure that this unanimous affidavit of the entire Members of Bar of Kahuta was made after the appellant had left the station.
6. With regard to the opinion of the countersigning authority viz. Deputy Commissioner, that the appellant was always slipping away and cannot be controlled by him for his truent habits, we are not impressed with the same as there is nothing on the record to show that the D.C. Detected this flaw in the character of the appellant by taking a note of the same in his diary or even called upon him to explain his absence. On the other hand what is on the record is that he was always allowed to leave the station whenever he was called upon to visit Lahore in connection with giving evidence in cases with which he remained involved as a 1st Class Magistrate at Lahore, The appellant has placed on record a large number of summons to show that his visits to Lahore were not pleasure trips or an absence without leave but these visits were always in compliance to the summons of judicial officers and in this way we are satisfied that there is nothing on the record to justify the observation of the countersigning authority.
7. We also cannot remain oblivious of the fact that this A.C.R. As well as remarks of the D.C. Came as an aftermath of the earlier incident of the appellant proceeding on leave without obtaining proper sanction which resulted into suspension and proceedings culminated under the & D Rules against him. As the past episode was fresh in the minds of both the officers, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that their observation were not completely independent.
8. We, therefore, proceed to accept the appeal, expunge the remarks pertaining to the period from 28-12-1980 to 12-7-1981 and direct that the same may be struck from his A.C.R.