' MALIk ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-S. M. Sbujah, E.A.C./Magistrate First Class has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. In which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondent. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks communicated to him by the respondent vide demi-official letter, dated 17th July, 1982 be expunged from his Character Roll.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Magistrate First Class/Special Traffic Magistrate during the period from 20th August, 1981 to 24th December.
1981. His work and conduct was commented upon in Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the said period in which the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan remarked that the appellant was a thoroughly irresponsible officer, that he had no control over his staff, although the Deputy Commissioner had given an average report to the appellant. Thus remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 17th July, 1982. The appellant submitted a representation for the expunction of adverse remarks which was rejected by the respondent vide letter, dated 28th November, 1982. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondent. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that during the aforesaid period of 4i months, the appellant worked as Traffic Magistrate and only Naib-Quasid and a Reader was subordinate to him being his staff members. He has further submitted that during the said period the appellant was not assigned any Police Station and as such did not handle criminal work, Learned counsel has also submitted that during the past 9 years service no adverse remarks had been given to him. Thus the remarks of the Commissioner that he has no control over his staff are not vague but are incorrect because these are not supported by any instance. Regarding the remarks of being a thoroughly irresponsible officer, it has been argued that during the aforesaid period no complaint depicting any irresponsibility was filed against the appellant and even the Commissioner has not supplied any material to show that his remarks were justified. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has repeated these arguments by arguing that these remarks are well-considered and have been fully substantiated by the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Multan vide their demi-official letters, dated 26th October, 1982 and 10th September, 1982, respectively. He has produced the original record for our perusal.
4. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments addressed at bar and have also consulted the record of this case carefully. The respondents have not placed on record any document to show that the appellant was assigned magisterial work of any police station during the said period.
In view of this the remarks of the Deputy Commissioner in his confidential letter, dated 10th September, 1982 that the performance of the appellant was not unto the mark because as a whole time Magistrate he had to contribute 75 units per month whereas he contributed 661% units during the period from September to December, 1981 seems to be irrelevant. The appellant was a whole time Traffic Magistrate for Multan District and such Magistrates are not given any judicial work to enable them to concentrate on tour to District and checking the traffic at Highways. The only point raised by the respondent that the Countersigning Officer i. e. The Commissioner, Multan had justified his remarks that the appellant did not control the traffic congestion at various points in Multan City, Chowk Kutchery and Chowk B.C.C. Etc. Learned counsel for the appellant while replying to this point has stated that it was not the duty of the appellant to remove the congestion at the Chowks referred to above. No document has been placed on the record to show that it was one of the duty of the appellant as a Traffic Magistrate to attend to removing the congestion at important Chowks of Multan City. To our mind this duty falls upon the shoulders of the Traffic Police to control the traffic at various sensitive points of the city. The duty of the Traffic Magistrate is of a judicial nature of apprehending the violators of the Traffic Laws, therefore, the impugned remarks by the learned Commissioner are not justified on this score. The appellant has placed before us the figures relating to vehicles impounded and fine recovered during the said period which seems to be higher than that of his predecessor. We have also seen the service record of the appellant and find that he enjoys good service record throughout his service career. Keeping in view the above detailed discussion we hold that the remarks conveyed to the appellant, vide letter, dated 17th July, 1982 are unjustified and are liable to be expunged.
5. In view of the above analysis we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 17th July, 1982 and direct that the adverse B remarks recorded against the appellant for the period 20th August, 1981 to 24th December, 1981 be expunged and struck out from the Character Rolls of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs.