' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, (CHAIRMAN).-Ch. Muhammad Hussain, S.D.O./Assistant Engineer, Bhalwal Irrigation Workshop, Bhalwal, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer SCARP-H Circle Sargodha, Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha Region, Sargodha and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks as contained in letter, dated 28th July, 1979, may be expunged and the final orders, dated 8th January, 1981 and 14th March, 1981, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that vide letter, dated 28th July, 1979, the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the period from 8th June, 1978 to 31st December, 1978. He filed a representation and respondent No, 2 asked the respondent No, 1 to justify his remarks vis-a-vis the facts and figures given by the appellant to repudiate the various remarks. The respondent No, 1 frankly conceded in his letter, dated 21st October, 1979, that the remarks given by the Reporting Officer were incorrect and were liable to be ignored in view of the above-mentioned actual position. He further recommended that all the remarks he expunged. However, in spite of that the appellant's aforesaid representation was rejected vide letter, dated 8th January, 1981 to 14th March, 1981. 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 entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged each and every column of the adverse report ,given by the Reporting Officer and has submitted that in the column 'Initiative and drive' which has been rated as below average, the assessment made by the Reporting Officer was not correct. It has been submitted that initiative and drive taken by the appellant promptly at each occasion and submitted proposals suggesting ways and means to improve the efficiency, therefore, the same may not be considered below average. In column 5 'Ability to Plan, organize and supervise work he has been declared as below average, it has been submitted that the same was not based on facts.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant if there was any deficiency on this point the same would have pointed out. It has been claimed that it was the result of appellant's planning and strict supervision that the percentage of running of tubewell in his Sub-Division topped the other Divisions of the Circle which could be verified from the Weekly Progress Reports. With regard to column No, 7 Perseverance and devotion to duty, which has been rated as below average, it has been submitted that if this would have been so he could not top the Division in keeping maximum numbers of tube wells in his Sub-Division in working position. Regarding column No, 8 capacity to guide and train subordinates which is also rated as below average, it has been submitted that the appellant has always afforded verbal guidance to Subordinate Staff at each occasion and even went to the extent by issuing instructions in writing. He has relied on inspection note, dated 7th December, 1978 issued vide No, 2572-73/8-G, dated 13th December, 1970 and dated 3rd January, 1979 issued vide No, 2557-58/8-G, dated 3rd January, 1979. With regard to column No, 10-Integrity
(a) Intellectual which has been rated below average, it has been submitted that the appellant had worked under four Executive Engineers and all of them have been quite satisfied with the integrity both intellectual and otherwise. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this was nothing but a vague sort of observation without supporting by any actual incident. While dealing with column No, 11 sense of responsibility (a) General (b) in financial matters and has been rated as below average, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been very prompt in submitting the progress reports of tubewells and regular in submitting the estimates of defective tubewells. Similarly learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the observation against column No, 14, Capability of accepting responsibility which has been rated below average and has submitted that what has been said was based on malice. He has vehemently criticized the pen-picture and submitted that he based his assessment on an alleged corruption case which was under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Establishment Sargodha otherwise there was nothing on the record to justify pen-picture as well as sweeping remarks in columns 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 14. In the end a lot of stress has been laid on the letter of Superintending Engineer which according to the learned counsel has fully exonerated the appellant and has recommended for expunction of adverse remarks.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by respondents Nos, 1 and 2 as well as of respondent No, 3 and has prayed that the assessment being correct may be maintained.
7. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal was time-barred and it was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. He has further relied on the comments of the Reporting Officer which runs into 9 pages. The same was submitted by him on 24th March, 1980 to the Chief Engineer Irrigation Sargodha when he was asked to justify his observation.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and before proceeding on the merits of the case, we will like to resolve this issue on the preliminary objection of the learned District Attorney as well as respondent No, 3 on the point of limitation.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant was conveyed these remarks by Mian Masood Akhtar the then Chief Engineer Irrigation, Sargodha vide his letter, dated 28th July, 1979, in which it was clearly stated that the appellant was permitted to submit his representation in duplicate through proper channel and should acknowledge the communication of these remarks, in his own signatures. The appellant acknowledged the remarks and made a representation Annexure "B" on 3rd September, 1979. This representation was ultimately rejected vide letter, dated 11th May, 1980 but the appeal has been filed on 23rd February, 1984, almost four years after the said final rejection.
We have perused the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay filed by the appellant through his learned counsel, dated 19th February, 1984. The only reason given is that as a criminal case was registered against him and the same was sub-judice so he kept on waiting for the decision of the said case, therefore, according to the contents of the application it was sufficient reason for condonation of delay.
10. We have taken into consideration the reasons advanced by the appellant for condonation of delay and do not find the same as impressive. He cannot be allowed to wait for full four years for filing of appeal before this Tribunal as the pendency of the criminal case has no relevancy with the expunction of adverse remarks. We have gone through the comments of the Reporting Officer carefully and do not find any mention of the fact of the pendency of criminal case or reliance for the same for making adverse observation on the work and conduct of the appellant. The Reporting Officer has stoutly denied any malice or ill motive so attributed against him by the appellant and has dubbed it an ultimate excuse to cover his own exigency and guilt. If we would have found any reference about the pendency of the criminal case in the report of the Commenting Officer we would have certainly taken into account this ground for condonation of delay. This fact has also been further denied by respondent No 3 in his own comments by submitting that F.I.R. 24/77. A dated 11th October, 1977 has no relevancy with the present case in any manner of whatsoever.. This being so we ate of the considered opinion that the present appeal filed by the appellant is hopelessly time-barred and the reason given by him for condonation of this inordinate delay is very poor and irrelevant.
11. The result is that without going into the merits of the case we dismiss the appeal as hopelessly time-barred. There will be no order as to costs.