S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Nasimul Islam Pasha, Section Officer, Finance Department has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab (through the Additional Chief Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, as respondents.
By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order whereby the petition of the appellant for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the A. C. R. For the period from 7-2-1978 to 31-12-1978, was rejected, may tie set aside and direction be given to the respondent to expunge the adverse entry from the A. C. R.
3. Brief facts of the case are that for the period from 7-2-1978 to 31-12-1978, the work of the appellant had been favourably commented upon but at the same time following remarks were also recorded:- "(1) "(i) Co-operation and tactBelow average.
(ii) Integrity
(a) Intellectual.Below average.
(i.e) Interest in social welfare.Is inclined to treat this aspect of his duty as routine function.
(iv) Interest in economic develop-Is inclined to treat this aspect of ment.His duty as routine function.
(v) Behaviour with public.Is inclined to be arrogant.
Failed to preserve his image as an efficient and honest officer. Not fit for field job."
The appellant filed a representation for expunction of these remarks as according to him the same were inconsistent with the work and conduct of the appellant and also prayed for personal hearing. This representation was rejected, vide order dated 24-11-1979. The appellant represented again for personal hearing which was ultimately rejected vide impugned order dated 3-5-1982.
Hence this appeal.
4. We have beard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the remarks were ambiguous and contrary to the actual performance of the appellant during the year 1978. In this respect he has relied on para. 44 of the Instructions about Confidential Reports page 35, Chapter III of C.M. Vol. 1 Revised, which according to him, have the force of rules under section 23 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Learned counsel has also referred to the work and conduct of the appellant during the course of service and particularly for the period under dispute and has submitted that there was ample evidence on the record to show that the adverse report was contrary to actual facts.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the remarks were passed on the opinion of the Reporting Officer after adjudging his work and conduct during the period under report. According to learned District Attorney that the reporting officer received verbal comp-- laints against the appellant from the Members of the Bar and it was due to the intervention of the District , and Sessions Judge that the matter was settled. It has also been denied on behalf of the respondent that performance of the appellant was in no way laudible and it has been stressed that the Reporting Officer would be the best Judge of the work of the subordinate.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties so advanced in their favour and would now refer a large number of docu--ments which have been appended by the appellant with his appeal, to see whether the assessment made by the Reporting Officer about the work and conduct for the year 1978, would be in no manner justified or not. Annexure A is a resolution of thanks of Aman Committee Liaqatpur signed by both Shia and Sunni leaders of the area which paid a great tribute to the appellant in keeping the Aushoora situation in hand. Annexure B is a resolution of Bar Association Liaqatpur, District Rahimyar Khan, which has also prayed the performance of the appellant as Assistant Commissioner as well as Administrator, Municipal Committee. Annexure C is a note by Mr. Ghulam Rabbani Saddar, N. D. P District Rahimyar Khan, which refer the services of the appellant to the Local Council as praiseworthy. Annexure E is another resolution by an Organization known as All Pakistan Anjuman-e-Islah-e-Qaum duly signed by the leader of Khaksar Tehrik and P. N. A. In which it was stated that the appellant is a person available to the public and performed his duties in a most praiseworthy manner. In Annexure F, Amir-e- Jamaat-Islami, has also expressed his sentiment about the excellent performance of the appellant. In Annexure G Mr. Baqar Hussain Shah, Sadar, Pakistan National Democratic Party, has lauded the performance of the appellant with regard to the social work which according to him was neglected before his arrival. President Muslim League tehsil Liaqatpur Mr. Muhammad Rafiq has paid a great tribute to the perfor--mance of the appellant. There are three Annexures 1, J, A, from Joint Secretary, Jamiat Ulema Pakistan, Sadar and Nazam of the same organiza--tion which have fully praised the appellant's performance in all and we can leave to believe to consider him an identical officer. There are also on the record a number of resolutions in the form of annexures L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T which prove that all those lapses which are attributed to the appellant in the adverse report by the Reporting Officer, are lacking in his case in the eye of public functionaries, Members of the Bars, public at large and religious sects of the said area. In view of the abundance of evidence in favour of the appellant the argument of the learned District Attorney based on the comments of the respondents that the verbal complaints against the appellant were covered from the class of Lawyers and religious heads of Shia and Sunni sects falls to the ground.
8. We have further examined the entire record of service of the appellant and find that he has always been considered a good officer of integrity moral as well intellectual. It would be very difficult for us to accept that a person who has all along been considered a fine officer and has also earned good reports after the adverse in question cannot over night show or exhibit traits of tactlessness or lack of integrity. This is why the instructions laid down for recording A. C. R. Of the civil servant a great stress has been laid down and the Reporting Officers have been warned to make assessm ent with care and caution when he is convinced that he would be in a position to justify his remarks when called upon to do so.
9. In view of the above we find that the observations made against the appellant do not find support from any concrete example of the time rather the same stand rebutted by influx of resolutions of various sections of life at Liaqatpur during the year 1978. We, therefore, proceed to accept the appeal and direct that the impugned remarks may be expunged from the A. C. R. 1978 of the appellant. There will be no order as to cost.