' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---Arshad All Rana, Lecturer in Mathematics, Government College Shorekot, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. 1974, for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. For the year 1980. He has impleaded Mr. Khurshid Muhammad Gohar. Principal, Government Ghazali Inter-college, Jhang, Mian Umar Din, Director of Education, Sargodha Division now Director of Edccation (Schools), Sargodha and the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he was prayed that the impugned adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R.
Of the appellant for the year 1980 be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Reporting Officer while writing the A.C.R. Of the appellant observed as under. {{URDU TEXT}} L.T.Y tw..1 21.9 0."4'.., 01 J-31 t:)4.' e-""4-j" t.eY - V":" L45 I l S d4 C443 )k4 va I c.El er, Ls +) jr L.4 d23Lwo9 jj S.A.4 di(a Lr e, jn 1,55- 4),,S sf c19IAS L.4.1 i:)1 rV4-3)1:. r) .l ail 'C1-, tt ar ' The appellant subsequently submitted a representation for expunction of the adverse remarks of respondent No, 3 who vide his letter, dated 15th November, 1983, rejected the same. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard 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 with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the report was not initiated in the first week of January by the initiating authority but the same was recorded in the last week of January, 1981, which was contrary to rule 2 of the rules relating to recording of Annual Confidential Reports. It has been further argued that the communication of the remarks would also be in accordance with the rules but the same were conveyed to the appellant on 17th August, 1981. A grievance has been made that even the countersigning authority has also not countersigned the same within the prescribed period. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that the remarks were the result of malice on the part of the Reporting Officer due to an incident when Muhammad Nawaz, Lecturer in Political Science, made a complaint in writing against respondent No, 1.
According to learned counsel he took it in his head that the appellant was supporting the complainant.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the respondents and submitted that the same were fully justified.
7. We have consulted the record and have perused the comments of the Reporting Officer and find that he has justified his comments as under."The appellant was transferred to Bhera on the desire of Deputy Commissioner, Jhang. After some time, he contacted me at my home with a miserable looking face, telling me most tragic stories of his personal unhappy domestic life, he requested with all humility which I realized to be fake one later on, that he had thoroughly reformed himself and he was totally a changed man. He assured me that he would live peacefully respecting his superiors and co-operating with his colleagues. He also said that he was no longer a mischief monger. I 'unfortunately believed him. This was the reason I recommended him to the Director of Education, Sargodha for giving him a chance of proving his new self and worth."
Be that it may, what we find is that the last observation would be uncalled for which runs as under. {{URDU TEXT}} c,S." 4:31 Z.. 04 wSr 1. 143 rti:i I t"
J3 c.),JIJ j_11 et_ jn ' The reasons being that this type of observation does not find support from any incident which should satisfy us that the appellant was working against the Government, country and religion, therefore, we direct that this observation be expunged whereas the remaining will stand undisturbed.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the light of the observation made in para. 7 above. There will be no order as to costs.