' Ch. Muhammad Ayub, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents mentioned-above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remark for the period from 9th January, 1983 to 30th June, 1983, as communicated to the appellant, vide memo. No, 811-84/414-E (E & T)-II, dated 3rd March, 1984 of the respondent No, 2, be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks vide memo. No, 811-84/414-E (E & T) dated 3rd March, 1983, communicated by the Director-General, Excise and Taxation Punjab, Lahore for the period 9th January, 1983 to 30th June, 1983 : - "No big seizure/detection during the period. The overall conduct of the official remained just of approvable type only."
' The appellant made a representation to the Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore on 8th April, 1984, and after waiting for 90 days he has filed this appeal. Hence this appeal.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks communicated to the appellant are vague and contradictory. These are "No big seizure/detection during the period. The overall conduct of the official remained just of approvable type only." These remarks itself show that the work and conduct of the appellant was satisfactory and thus, he was not required to convey the aforementioned remarks which were not adverse remarks if reference is made to instructions on the subject conveyed by the Punjab Government. Even on merits, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the remarks," no big seizure/detection during the period have not been supported by facts and figures by the respondents, supplied alongwith their parawise comments. The appellant took over as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer at Mianwali on 9th January, 1983. At the close of the financial year i,e,, by 30th June, 1983, the appellant was able to achieve recoveries under all the heads under appellant's charge. Secondly the appellant had dual charge of Bhakkar District also where re-assessment operations of property tax were in progress. The appellant efficiently and honestly carried out that work and completed it within the scheduled period upto entire satisfaction of his superiors. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that no complaint whatsoever from any quarter was ever lodged about the work and conduct of the appellant. On the cinema and excise detection side, the number of detections and volume of income as compared to the six months' period of last year was also in excess. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the comparative statements attached with the appeal. Concluding his arguments it has been, thus, submitted by the appellant's counsel that the adverse remarks have been recorded against the facts and figures on record, due to some misunderstanding on the part of the Reporting Officer and the countersigning officer. He has prayed that these be expunged.
5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied in entenso on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. He has submitted that keeping in view the facts and figures given by the respondents, they have fully justified the adverse remarks so given to the appellant. Hence, no exception can be taken against the impugned order.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and also the statements Annexures 'A' and 'B' attached alongwith the parawise comments by them. Annexure 'A' with the parawise comments shows as follows, the Excise position for the 6 months prior to taking over of the appellant and during six months of appellants tenure (appellant ' joined Mianwali on 9th January, 1983) :- 1-7-1982 to 31-12-1982 (quantity) 1.1-1983 to 30-6-1983 (quantity)
Opium. 421 gm. 2,083 gm.
Charas. 5,745 gm. 10,706 gm.
Liquor. 3,700 ML 900 ML W. Still. 5,400 ML Bhang.
Tr. Spirit. 3,300 ML 3,920 ML Poppy Heads.
Others.
Grand total. 6,166 gm. And 7,000 ML 12,789 gm. And 10,220 ML {{TABLE TEXT}} ' The above comparative figures show that the appellant's performance had been far better than that of his predecessor.
7. Similarly if a reference is made to Anne= 'B' attached with the parawise comments filed by the respondents regarding recovery of taxes collected by the appellant and his predecessor, the appellant made recovery during his tenure of six months to the extent of Rs, 45,69,974 whereas his predecessor was able to effect the recovery of such taxes during the six months upto 1982 to the extent of Rs, 31,64,670. Therefore, the recoveries made by the appellant are not only far better than his predecessor but he had also achieved the target. The annual target was Rs, 83,03,361.00.
Whereas the target to be achieved during the 6 months was Rs, 41,51,680.00 but the appellant made a recovery of Rs, 45,69,974 surpassing the target. The following are the details of Annexure 'B' as given by the respondents. {{TABLE TEXT}} District Mianwali Description Annual Target Recovery upto 2nd Six Recovery to Tax 31-12-1982 Months upto from 30- 6-1983 1-1-1983 to 30-6-1983 Rs, Rs, Rs, Rs, Excise. 10,000 . 3,804 6,398 10,202 Motor Tax. 44,00,000 21,46,423 15,67,707 37,14,130 Motor Tax (A). 89,358 38,203 40,599 78,802 Property Tax. 4,81,876 2,44,710 1,14,667 3,59,377 Exemption 93,412 29,087 1,22,400 3,38,122 1,43,754 4,81,876 1985 Entertainment Rs, Rs, Rs, 963 Rs, Duty. 5,00,000 2,54,077 2,67,084 5,21,161 Cinema Tax. 10,000 10,200 - 10 200 Tobacco Vend Fee. 10,000 3,600 6,400 10,000 Education Cess. 7,00,000 1,10,550 2,74,250 7,84,800 Capital Gains Tax. 1,40,000 62,891 87,555 1,50,446 Professional Tax. 3,00,000 1,96,200 1,16,100 3,12,300 Real Estate, 2,000 600 - 600 Agents.
Cotton fee 16,127 - 16,127 16,127 Arrear. alMIM Omom Total 83,03,361 31,64,670 45,69,974 77,34,644" {{TABLE TEXT}} (Predecessor's Appellant's period). Period).
I consider that the good work done by the appellant should have been appreciated by his superiors. I also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping in view the facts and figures as analysed in this Judgment, the adverse remarks given to the appellant are vague and contradictory.
7. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the respondents have not been able to justify the adverse remarks so recorded in the A.C.R. B of the appellant for the period from 9th January, 1983 to 30th June, 1983 and are thus expunged.
' There will be no order as to costs.