S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Miss N. Z. Siddiqui has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which she has impleaded the Director of Social Welfare Punjab and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government Social Welfare and Rural Development Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, she has prayed that impugned orders dated 15-10-1977 and 7-10-1978, be set aside and her orders of reversion from the post of Social Welfare Officer to Auxiliary Worker dated 31-8-1977, be also set aside. It has been further prayed that adverse entry in the A. C. R.
Pertaining to the year 1976, be also expunged and respondent be directed to consider her case for regular promotion as Social Welfare Officer, from the date her juniors were so promoted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant while working as Social Welfare Officer, was conveyed adverse remarks as given by the Reporting Officer for the year 1976, by Mr. A. R. Farooqi, Assistant Director, A. D. M., vide his letter dated 15th October, 1977. She made a represen--tation against entries but her efforts did not meet any success and she was informed vide a letter dated 7th October, 1978, by the Government/ respondent No. 2 that her representation stood rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney for the respondents and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly relied on the (e.i)--dence of witnesses, so produced by her to support the claim of malice on the part of Hadi Raza Khan who being a Reporting Officer of the appel--lant has given her sweeping below average/poor entries against all columns of the A. C. R. From I to IX. The learned counsel for the appellant beside relying on the evidence so produced, submitted that the Reporting Officer was so full of malice against the appellant that no single item in the A. C. R. Was spared to condemn the appellant in all respects. It was argued that paras. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, pointed the appellant as a hopeless in all respects, whereas the previous service record of her, belied this bleak and harrowing picture of her conduct. The learned counsel has pointed out that cause of all this annoyance was the case of one Muhammad Akram an A. W., who was working under the appellant. Mr. Hadi Raza Khan for personal reasons wanted to ruin his career and for this purpose he had asked the appellant to substitute the good A.
C. R., given by her to said Muhammad Akram by a bad one. The appellant first of all resisted this unjust and unethical order but ultimately scumbed to the pressure of Hadi Raza Khan in face of the threats so extended to her. According to learned counsel the appellant after substituting the good A. C. R. With bad one, on the behest of Hadi Raza Khan, she could not live in peace with her conscience and told all this to Muhammad Akram to console her morals. The learned counsel has appended with the appeal, the alleged original of the first A. C. R. Given by the appellant to Muhammad Akram, and also specimen of the second A. C. R. Which Hadi Raza Khan wanted her to substitute and which she so substituted under coersion as Annexs. O and O/ I respectively.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has adopted the written statement submitted by the respondents, so filed previously and has submitted that appellant has sought multifarious relief through an appeal, thus the appeal suffers a major defect and should be allowed to remain to main issue of this case i.e. Expunction of adverse entries pertaining to the year 1976. It has been further submitted that matter of promotion is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, thus prayer of the appellant to this aspect of the case is not maintainable.
7. With regard to the reversion of the appellant from the post of Social Welfare Officer to that of Auxiliary Worker it has been urged that her appointment was ad hoc in nature; therefore, reversion was no punish--ment and was a matter which had to take place, in view of her basic status.
8. While adverting to main issue of her appeal, the learned District Attorney has submitted that this Tribunal can read into the evidence so led by the appellant and is within its right to reach at any conclusion, if so warranted from the record, as this Tribunal is a forum which can record evidence and assess the same.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the pleading so brought on the record by both parties as well as the arguments to supplement the same and find that appellant cannot ask us to look into her claim of promotion and incidence of reversion. What we are concerned in this appeal is to decide, as to whether the adverse remarks in the A. C. R. Of 1976 are based on correct assessment of the Reporting Officer about the conduct of the appellant in various fields, so indicated in the columns of the said documents A. C. R. Or the same are due to personal annoyance of the said officer.
10. We have before us the allegation in the form of defence by the appellant that Mr. Hadi Raza Khan suddenly turned hostile towards the appellant, when she by command of her conscience, disclosed the back--ground of A. C. R. So adversely given by her to Muhammad Akram. To substantiate this incident, there is an application of Muhammad Akram himself dated 15-6-1977 Annex `E' addressed to the Deputy Director, Direc--torate of Social Welfare, Lahore Division in which he has in so many words, affirmed the defence of the appellant. It is significant to note that this date is earlier to the A. C. R. In dispute which was conveyed to the appellant after four months of this disclosure. According to rules on the subject the A. C. R. Of 1976, had to be conveyed by January, 1977, but same was being communicated in October, 1977. This gap and delay can lead to inference that application of Muhammad Akram Annex. `E' could give a strong cause of annoyance to the Reporting Officer who decided to teach lesson of her life to the appellant for her disclosing the background of A. C. R. Of Muhammad Akram.
11. We have before us evidence of Manzoor Hussain Alvi A. W. 2, Research Officer, Ministry of Labour Manpower Government of Pakistan, who has categorically stated that in his presence Mr. Hadi Raza told the appellant that she had no business to give good report to Muhammad Akram, who was a worthless official. He has further stated that said Hadi Raza Khan asked the appellant to re-write the said A. C. R. A. W. 3 Mrs. Bushra Khalida Mahmood, Under Secretary, Social Welfare and Zakat Department has also accepted that Mr. Hadi Raza Khan was a person of quarrelsome nature and was also fussy one. She has stated that his rela--tions with his subordinates were also often strained. Malik Munir A. W. 1 although has not supported the main allegation of the appellant against Mr. Hadi Raza Khan but has indicated to the tough nature of said officer. In these circumstances, it would be safe to presume that Hadi Raza was unhappy with the-appellant and thus in a sweeping manner he found the appellant lacking in all qualities from A to Z against all the possible columns of the A. C. R. Forms. We are aware of the fact that appellant has earlier served the department well and was also promoted on account of her creditable performance, as back as in the year 1973. The respondents have failed to bring to our notice that appellant had a chequered record of service and was even proceeded against under E & D Rules and she was considered unfit for the post by her superiors. On the converse her superiors who have appeared before us, have clearly stated that she was good worker although not outstanding. They have also observed that Hadi Raza Khan was person who was all out to decry his subordinates whenever he found an occasion to do so. We also cannot remain oblivious of the manner, in which the A. C. R. Of the appellant has been written by the Reporting Officer and can read in-between the lines and the trend of mind of the Reporting Officer as well.
12. In view of the above analysis of the entire history of this case, we are of the considered opinion that strong possibility of personal annoyance cannot be ruled out of impugned A. C. R. So written by the Reporting Officer in case of the appellant and thus set aside the same, holding it an outcome of, personal annoyance and not based on actual A merits. We also take strong note of the fact that despite our clear direction the Reporting Officer has failed to provide us his personal comments to justify his observation vis-a-vis the work, and conduct of the appellant.
13. The result is, we set aside the impugned orders and proceed to accept the appeal.
14. However, the parties will bear their own costs.