ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Matloob Ahmad Khan, Assistant, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Secretary to Government of Punjab, Establishment of Revenue Department (Board of Revenue), Punjab, and the Senior Member, Board of. Revenue, Incharge of Establishment, Board of Revenue. Punjab, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders dated 4-10-1982, 4-2- 1982 and 8-6-1981 and other similar orders if any may be set aside and the appellant be allowed to cross the efficiency bar raising his pay from Rs. 360 to 380 w.e f. 1-6-1972 in the time scale of Rs.
225-15-360,20-500 in the interest of justice.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the efficiency bar of the appellant. Matloob Ahmad Khan, was withheld without assigning any reason vide office order No. 4396/72/483-Adm/Part-II, dated 4-8- 1972 by 'order of Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue at Rs. 360 in the time scale of Rs. 225-15- T360/20-500 w.e.f. 1-6-1972. The appellant submitted an appeal against this or, 4-9-1972. The appellant was informed vide order dated 17-1-1-1972 of Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab that in view of the adverse reports earned by the appellant in the past, he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The appellant made other representations which were rejected vide orders dated 19-11-1973 and 25-5-1974, as the appellant was not yet found fit to cross the efficiency bar. However, the appellant was communicated the adverse remarks regarding the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 vide office order dated 29th May, 1974, of Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab. The appellant made request for expunction of these adverse remarks which was rejected by Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, vide office order dated 29th October, 1974.
Another request of the appellant regarding crossing of efficiency bar withheld from 1-6-1972 was considered and rejected vide order dated I1-2-1975 of Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab. In the meanwhile the appellant was allowed to cross the efficiency bar at Rs. 475 w.e.f. 1-12- 1975 by order of Senior Member (Establish--ment) Board of Revenue, dated 15-1-1978. The appellant was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act in the year '1979. The appellant made a review petition to the Review Committee, consisting of three members of Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was accepted and the petitioner was allowed to be retained in service with full benefits vide order dated 28-7-1982, of Review Committee comprising of Mr. Muhammad Azhar, Member, Board of Revenue, Mr. A.K. Khalid, Member, Board of Revenue, and Mr. S. M. Nasim, Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant submitted an application on 14-4-1981 to the Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, requesting that keeping in view the observations made by the Review Committee, regarding adverse remarks, in their order dated 28- 7-1982, the appellant be allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. .1-6-1972 which was considered and rejected by order dated 8-6-1981 of Member (Revenue & Colonies), Incharge Establishment, Board of Revenue, Punjab. In the meanwhile, the appellant was allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1-12-1977 vide order dated 4-2-1982 of Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Revenue Depart--ment. The appellant filed another representation dated 18-2-1982 to the Revenue Board which was finally rejected by the Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department in consultation with the Finance Department vide order dated 4-10-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not fair on the part of the respondents to withhold the efficiency bar of the appellant on 1-6- 1972 on the basis of the adverse remarks of the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 which were not conveyed to the appellant. Thus, the appellant was punished without giving a chance to clear his position and he had been prejudiced in the matter. These entries were conveyed to the appellant in the year 1974, This is an ample proof of the facts that the appellant efficiency bar was withheld in the year 1972 for those adverse remarks which were not in appellant's knowledge and he was not allowed an opportunity to rebut these. Thus, the appellant was punished arbitrarily and at the sweet will of the respondents. The appellant's counsel also relied on the judgment dated 28-7-1982 of the Review Committee comprising of three Members of the Board of Revenue, wherein these adverse remarks were evaluated and according to their observations, these remarks were not considered as adverse and an hurdle for re-instatement of the appellant in the service. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that withholding of the appellant's efficiency bar from 1-6-1972 is uncalled for, unlawful and unjustided.
5. Controverting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney has raised an objection that the appeal is time-barred. It has-been argued by the learned District Attorney that the appeals 'representations of the appellant were rejected in the years 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1981. The appellant has made this appeal to this Tribunal on 30-10-1982. Hence the appeal is hopelessly time-barred; as the appellant had no right to make appeals/representations time and again on the issue which stood rejected and decided in the year 1972, as per rules. On merits, it was also argued, the appellant had adverse reports prior to the year 1972, hence, his efficiency bar was withheld, as per rules It was submitted and concluded by the learned District Attorney that appellant's efficiency bar was withheld correctly and lawfully.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record. We take up first the legal objection of the learned District Attorney. No doubt the appeals/representations of the appellant were rejected time and again ; but the appellant remained agitating this issue with the Board of Revenue and they kept it entertaining from time to time. When the appellant was re-instated by the decision dated 28-7-1982 of the Review Committee comprising of three Members of Board of Revenue, Punjab, this order did discuss and made observations regarding the adverse remarks of the year 1968 which earlier became one of the basis for withholding of his efficiency bar from 1-6-1972. The appellant had quoted these observations new grounds in his favour while filing his representation dated 14-4-1981. Furthermore, a perusal of the order dated 4th October, 1982, of rejection of the appellant's representa--tion against withholding efficiency bar w.e.f. 1-6-1972, has been issued after consultation with the Finance Department by the Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department, which was also seen by Member, Establish--ment Secretary to the Government. Thus, undoubtedly, this is the final order of the Authority for rejection of representation of the appellant and the appellant could file an appeal within thirty days as per section 4 (1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. As, the appeal has been filed to the Tribunal on 30-10-1982 by the appellant, within thirty days of the final order dated 4-10-1982, hence, the appeal is within time. The objection of the learned District Attorney regarding appeal not within time, has not been substantiated and is overruled.
7. As far as merit of the case is concerned, there is a lacuna in this case. The efficiency bar of the' appellant was withheld on the basis of the adverse remarks of the previous years, but it is clear from the parawise comments submitted by the respondents that the adverse remarks for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 were communicated to the appellant on 29-5-1974 after about two years of withholding of the efficiency bar. The efficiency bar was ordered to be with held on the adverse remarks which were cot conveyed to the appellant and he was not allowed to represent against these. Thus, this order was not a just order. We have also to keep in view the decision of the High Powered Review Committee comprising of Mr. S. M. Nasim, Mr. A. K. Khalid and Mr. Azhar, Members, Board of Revenue, Punjab, announced on 28-7-1982, in favour of the appellant, which is reproduced as follows :- "3. It is quite clear that the office failed to communicate the adverse remarks of 1968 to the petitioner well in time. The direction contained in Government letter dated 12th of July, 1969 referred to in the preceding paragraph was complied with in May, 1974 thereby depriving the petitioner of his right of filing a representation before the officers under whom he was working in the year 1968.
On a close examination of the Character Roll of the petitioner, it transpired that he had earned good reports during the last eight years and, throughout his service of 27 years he teas known for be an honest-official. There is no blot on his integrity. The adverse remarks generally relate to the delay in the disposal of cases or punctuality in attending the office. The cumulative effect of good and so-called bad remarks leads us to the conclusion that he is not an inefficient official. These adverse remarks were said to be the result of his temperament. He is reported to be quarrelsome but not for the extent of causing any harm to his colleagues-or officers. Taking all these factors into consideration and also keeping in view the difficult financial condition of the petitioner as explained by him, we feel inclined to consider his case on compassionate grounds.
4. In the circumstances, we accept the petition for review and direct that the order of the Senior Member (Establishment) dated 9-12-1979 shall be considered as non-existent and further that the petitioner should be retained in service with' full benefits to which he may be entitled."
Perusal of the above paras. Shows that these adverse remarks, so relied upon by Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue while withholding the efficiency bar of the appellant due on 1-6- 1972, were not considered adverse by the High Powered Review Committee and, thus, punishing and withholding of tie efficiency bar of the appellant from 1-6-1972, on theses adverse remarks is not justified and not fair.
8. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal of the appellant is accepted and the respondents are directed that the appellant be allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f 1-6-1972, as prayed.
There will be no orders as to costs.