S. ABDUL JABBAS KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Maqbool Ahmad, Senior Clerk to Assistant Advocate- General, Hq. M. L. A. .Zone A, Punjab Assembly Chambers, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of y the Punjab through Secretary Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife Department, Lahore, Chief Conservator of Forests, Cooper Road, Lahore, Conservator of Forests, Developing and Working Plan Circle, Ravi Road, Lahore and Deputy Director (Sericulture) Ravi Road, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks for the period from 1st January, 1979 to 25th May. 1979, recorded by respondent No. 4, be declared as being mala fide, illegal and unlawful, unjustified and inconsistent.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed a Junior Clerk in Small Industries Corporation, on 1st April, 1961. He was promoted as Senior Clerk from 8th January, 1973 and posted in the office of Sericulture Development Officer, Lahore. However, he was transferred from the office of Sericulture Development Officer, Lahore to the office of Assistant Director Sericulture, Multan, in the public interest. The appellant did not join at Multan and remained absent for two months and ultimately got his transfer cancelled and posted as Disburser in the office of Deputy Director Sericulture. While posted against this job it was found by his superiors that he was committing serious type of irregularities in not maintaining cash book day by day and was submitting a number of unsanctioned vouchers. He was called to explain his conduct and the matter was reported to the higher authorities, who initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. In view of this state of affair, the Reporting Officer gave adverse entry in his A. C. R. As under :-----
4. (i.e) Promptness & accuracy"Needs pushing every now and in disposing of work. Then."
6. (i.e) Monetary consideration: "Yes".
General remarks :"He gave a very poor account as a disburser. His cash was found short. He is an official possessing a doubtful integrity."
The appellant filed representation before the Conservator of Forests who after taking into consideration the plea raised by the appellant, rejected the same, vide his order, dated 9th August, 1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the adverse entry so given by respondent No. 4, on the ground that the appellant was not provided reasonable opportunity to disprove the allegations, therefore, the principle of natural justice has been violated. It has been further argued that no show-cause notice and charge-sheet was ever served upon the appellant regarding the adverse entry in the A.C.R. According to the learned counsel the record would reveal that from 1st January, 1979 to 25th May, 1979, appellant got adverse report but from 26th May, 1979 to 31st December, 1979, he got excellent report. It has been argued that the period under adverse report is hardly about 4J months whereas the period for which excellent report has been given is about 7J months. However, the main ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent No. 4 bore malice against the appellant and was looking for a chance to hit him. In this regard he has submitted that the incident narrated at pare. 10 of page 3 of memo. Of appeal, given in verna--cular, would show that respondent No. 4 was fully bent upon to harm him and threatened him that if he gets chance he will get him dismissed froth service.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has vehemently contested the allegation raised by the appellant and has turned this as wild, baseless and without any foundation. According to the learned District Attorney the Reporting Officer has fully justified his observation about the conduct of the appellant as the same are based on established' fact duly born out from the record of this case. He has also pointed out to the synopsis so placed by him on the record of this appeal with regard to the entire service record of the appellant, to show that the same was checkered one and a number of times and number of years, he was adversely reported and considered unfit for promotion. In the end it has been submitted that respondent No. 4 did not bear any ill--will or grudge against the appellant. If that would have been so, he should have given him adverse entry during the year 1976 when the appellant raised number of allegations against him. On the other hand respondent No. 4 like a fair officer had given good remarks for that period but when he found certain lapses on his part, ho reflected the same in his A. C. R. For the period under report.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that on 8th May, 1979 the appellant as a Disburser put up 70 unsanctioned vouchers for approval and sanction of the Deputy Director, Sericulture. 1t was found that out of 70 vouchers, appellant had himself made unauthorised payment of 54 vouchers. According to rules and procedure, he should have obtained prior permission/sanction of the authority before making such payments. The appellant being senior clerk cannot make any payment. It this way the appellant taking himself as D. D. O. Made certain payments and committed a serious lapse. On 10th May, 1979, respondent No. 4 checked the cash balance in the custody of the appellant and found a sum of Rs. 190.42 was short.
The appellant admitted the said shortage in cash balance and tried to make up the shortage by another irregularity by advancing a sum of Rs. 1.13 to certain officials for which he was not competent to do so. In view of the above, the adverse entry recorded in his A. C. R. Is based on facts, which cannot be denied and stand fully proved on the record.
8. With regard to the malice alleged by the appellant against the Reporting Officer (respondent No. 4), we have taken care to assess the argument of the learned District Attorney that in the year 1976, when the appellant bad made wild allegation against the Reporting Officer he had not given him bad report and in fact was responsible for his promotion. As this fact stands verified from the A. C.
R. As well as from the record of this case, we have no hesitation to hold that respondent No. 4 did not bear any ill-will or malice against the appellant and like a fair officer, also refused to conduct enquiry against him when the appellant expressed no confidence in him.
9. With regard to the incident as related in vernacular at para 10 of page 3 of the appeal, we do not find any documentary evidence on the record to prove the same and have no alternative but to reject it fantasy of his brain and nothing else and nor justify his claim of malice.
10. In view of the above analysis of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs. This may be communicated to the parties.