ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mr. Muhammad Abdul Majid, Executive Engineer, 1st Provincial Buildings Circle, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Communica--tion and Works Department, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks recorded in his Character Roll by Mr Saleem Akhtar Bhalli for the period from 1-1-1979 to 30-6-1979 be ordered to be expunged, the appellants also awarded such relief/reliefs to which he is found entitled on the acceptance of this appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Abdul Majid, was serving as Deputy Director (Planning & Design Cell) in Highway Department during the year 1979. Mr. Saleem Akhtar Bhalli was Director, P & D cell, during the above period under whom the appellant worked as Deputy Director. The following remarks were recorded in the appellant's Character Roll for the period 1-1- 1979 to 30-6-1979 by the above-mentioned Director "An average officer, more suited to field work and with no aptitude for planning & design work."
These remarks were construed as adverse by the then Secretary (C & W) who thereby adjudged the report in question as poor. The appellant represented against these adverse remarks on 11-6- 1980 which was rejected by the Communication & Works Department by order dated 13-10-1980.
Even then the appellant made another review application on 20-11-1980 to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore. A reminder was also sent for the same by the appellant on 10-1-1982. Communication & Works Department, again rejected his review application vide order dated 16-1-1982 with the following remarks :- "Your review application referred to therein has already been considered and rejected vide this Department's Memo. Of even No., dated 13-10-1980."
Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the adverse remarks so mentioned by Mr. Saleem Akhtar Bhalli, the then Director, in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant for the period from 1-1-1979 to 30-6-1979 has been as a result of enmity on the part of the said Director, otherwise there was no reason to record these adverse remarks when the Director himself had given the appellant good reports for the last three years i. e, 1976, 1977 and 1978. It was further argued by the appellant's counsel that this was due to the reason that appellant has objected to appointment and promotion made by the Director, illegally, without observing the rules and refusal of the appellant to favour the Director with perjury in the Court. This all annoyed the Reporting Officer and resulted in recording of these adverse remarks maliciously and without any justification. Concluding his arguments the appellant's counsel submitted that the adverse remarks be allowed to be expunged as these cannot stand keeping in view of the good work done by the appellant on the planning side which the Reporting Officer has himself admitted by writing good reports during the years 1976, 1977 and 1978. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that the appeal is time barred and is not maintainable. The representation of the appellant was rejected by the Communication and Works Department on 13- 10-1980. There was no justification for making another representation or review petition to the same authority i. e. Communication and Works Department again for the same issue which already stood concluded and rejected. The learned District Attorney further submitted that the appellant's representa--tion stood finally rejected on 13-10-1980. He has filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 10- 2-1982. Thus, his appeal is time barred by more than one year and cannot be entertained under the rule. The appellant's indulgence in the exercise of filing his representation after 13-10-1980 was uncalled for and unnecessary and does not help him to save time limit in his favour. As regards merits of the case the learned District Attorney argued that arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are misconceived, are not based on facts. The Director who has given him good reports for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 cannot be inimical and biased to the appellant during the year 1979 and that to for a short period i.e. 1-1-1979 to 30-6-1979. The learned District Attorney pointed out that reference be made to report of the Reporting Officer attached with the parawise comments on this appeal, submitted by the Communication and Works Department, where, the Reporting Officer has contradicted and rebutted the allegations of the appellant while giving his comments on the representation of the appellant for expunction of adverse remarks. The learned District Attorney submitted that keeping in view this justification given by the Reporting Officer, the appellant's case has no 'legs to stand, the adverse remarks are fully justified and there are no basis or reasons for their expunction.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the parties and have also consulted the record. As per practice of this Tribunal, we have been perusing the comments offered by the Reporting Officer on the representation of the appellant for expunction of adverse remarks to arrive at definite conclusion in the interest of justice. In this case also, we have perused carefully the comments offered on the represen--tation of the appellant by Mr. Saleem Akhtar Bhalli, attached with the parawise comments; wherein he has fully justified his remarks and has contradicted and rebutted the allegations put forth by the appellant in his representation.
Furthermore, we are also oblivious of the fact that according to para. 42 of instructions about confidential reports issued by the Government of West Pakistan, Services and General Administration Department No. S. (R) 3542/4-8'65-SOXIII, dated the 12th February, 1968, wherein it has been directed that the representation be made in temperate and dignified language and no allegations of personal and malicious nature should be made ; indiscreet and irresponsible allegations against Reporting Officers will result in disciplinary action. We feel that instead of giving the justification of his work and aptitude for planning and design work, the appellant has unnecessarily indulged into baseless allegations against the Reporting Officer in his representation and has failed to prove that the adverse remarks so recorded against him by the Reporting Officer were not justified. The appellant himself has placed with the appeal a letter U. O. No. 3-71/940- 942/P I, dated 26-8-1978, written by Mr. Saleem Akhtar Bhalli, Director P & D, to Mr. Muhammad Abdul Majid, the appellant and two other Deputy Directors, wherein it has been clearly mentioned by Mr. Saleem Akhtar Bhalli that "Mr. Muhammad Abdul Majid has remained as DD (L & S) for a sufficiently long time (over 21 years) without much contribution that from him towards Location and Survey of Roads". Thus during the second part of 1978 the appellant was made known that the contribution of the appellant regarding his work, was not above board. Keeping in view above facts of the case, we hold that adverse remarks given by the Reporting Officer and the respondent are fully justified and the appellant has failed to rebut these. Furthermore, as per arguments of the learned District Attorney regarding his appeal being time barred, we have also checked the record and find that it was incumbent upon the appellant to seek redress of grie--vance before this forum within 30 days (as laid down under section 4 (1) of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974) of rejection of his appeal by Com--munication and Works Department on 13-10-1980 and indulging in exercise of filing his revision application to the same authority after that was uncalled for, does not save time limit in his favour and does not persuade us to condone the delay of more than one year in his case ; especially when no solid reasons have been given for condoning delay in his application, filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
6. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal, which is also time barred ; and is dismissed as such.
There will beno order as to costs.