MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER)' .-Shaukat Ali, E. A. C., Special Magistrate, L.D.A., Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab , S. GA & I Department as only respondent. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 12-10-1982, by virtue of which his representation for expunctioning of adverse remarks conveyed to him by the impugned order dated 13-5-1979 be set aside and the adverse remarks expunged from his Character Rolls.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant remained posted as a Resident Magistrate, Gojra from 14-2-1977 to 13-3-1977, when the P.N.A. Movement regarding Election started after 10th March, 1977. However, the appellant was directed to report back at Faisalabad where he had originally been posted. During the period from 11-8-1978 to 31-12-1978, the appellant was posted as a Magistrate at D. G. Khan. The Government of the Punjab vide impugned letter dated 13-5-1978 conveyed the adverse remarks for a period from 1-1-1977 to 22-6-1977 and from 11-8-1978 to 31-12- 1978 on the work and conduct of the appellant which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience :- 1-1-1977 to 22-B-1977: There were complaints of wrong doings and excesses during the Election and the subsequent movement against him. Needs guidance and check.
11-8-1978 to 31-12-1978 He does not care for judicial norms."
The appellant submitted representations for the expunction of the said remarks to the respondent.
His representations were rejected by the Government vide order No. S. O (C) 1-275/77, dated 12-10- 1982. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the remarks for the period from 1-1-1977 to 22-6-1977 are wrong and uncalled for because the appellant was never entrusted with the Election Duty at Gojra from Faisalabad during the period under report. He has further submitted that while submitting the parawise comments to the appeal, the respondent has admitted this contention of the appellant. Regarding the remarks for the period from 11-8-1978 to 31-12-1978, he has argued that these are vague in nature and are mala fide. He has also sub-- mitted that the learned Reporting Officer has not quoted any instance to justify the remarks which is his legal duty to do so according to the instructions issued by the SGA&I Department regarding the Annual Confidential Report. On the other hand Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney appeared on behalf of the respondent has relied upon the letter of Mr. H, M Akram, dated 6-8-1980, addressed to the Secretary (Services), Govern--ment of the Punjab, SGA&I Department and has argued that the adverse remarks recorded against the appellant have been justified by the learned Reporting Officer.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record carefully. Justifying the remarks regard--ing complaints of wrong doings and excesses during the Election, Mr. H. M. Akram, the Reporting Officer has offered the comments which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience :- "The remarks were based on reports received before, during and after the elections against the officer. It was reported that some lady Presiding Officers had complained that they were not provided adequate protection in spite of the matter having been reported to the Magistrate. He had to be withdrawn from law and order duty from Gojra on one particular occasion when a person had lost his life during the movement and his burial had to take place. Some influential politicians belonging to P. N. A. Were apprehending deterioration in the law and order situation in case the Magistrate remained on duty at Gojra. It was for that reason that he was replac--ed by another Magistrate.
The remarks were based on factual position and were intended to help the officer in improving his work and conduct."
The perusal of these comments clearly shows that these comments related to the misdeeds etc. Committed by the appellant during the same election duty. We are afraid that while offering the comments, the Reporting Officer has not been able to recollect that the appellant was not the same person regarding whom he had recorded the adverse remarks. We have formed this opinion after perusing para. 3 of the appeal which is admitted by the respondent in his parawise comments. In para. 3 of the appeal the appellant had categorically stated that he was in fact posted at Faisalabad and was sent to Gojra only for a period of one month and thereafter he re-- ported back at Faisalabad on 14-3-1977. He has also contended in para. 2 of the appeal that he was not assigned any Election Duty either as a Return--ing Officer or as an Assistant Returning Officer during the Election of 1977, nor was he in any way concerned with the conduct of Election.
The res--pondent has not contradicted his contention in the appeal. Thus, categorically we hold that the remarks for the period from 1-1-1977 to 22-6-1977 are the outcome of some misunderstanding and are not justified. Even otherwise we have not shown any complaints lodged alleged by the Politicians or other persons against the appellant alleging acts of malfea--sance and misfeasance or regarding the misdeeds of the appellant. Thus the remarks for this period are unwarranted and have not been justified by the learned Reporting Officer for concrete examples.
Regarding the remarks for the period from 11-8-1978 to 31-12-1978, we have observed that neither the Reporting Officer nor the respondent has tried to justify these remarks in the parawise comments. The remarks are that appellant did not care for judicial norms. These remarks are per se vague in nature. There is nothing on the record to indicate the conduct of the appellant showing that he had not been caring for judicial norms. In the absence of any justification to record these remarks, we will not be able to uphold d these remarks. Keeping in view the above detailed discussion we hold that the remarks conveyed to the appellant vile his letter dated 13-5-1979 are unjustified and are liable to be expunged.
5. In view of the above analysis, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated 12-10-1982 and direct that the adverse remarks recorded against the appellant for the period from 1-1-1977 to 22-6-1977 and from I1-8-1978 to 31-12-1978 be expunged and struck -out from the Character Rolls of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs.