' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Ch. Shaukat Ali, Special Magistrate, L.D.A., Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. For the period from 1-1-1981 to 31-12-1981, and has impleaded Province of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks so conveyed to him may be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been conveyed adverse remarks given to him by Mr. Hassan Raza Pasha, Commissioner, Multan Dvision, Multan as under -- "Had the reputation of being, corrupt. On my warning, he got earned leave without routing his application through the Commissioner, which is a mark of indiscipline."
' The appellant made a representation against the same which was considered by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, who after considering all the pros and cons of the entire matter, rejected the same and thus the adverse entry has been sustained on his Character Roll.
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 service record of the appellant as well as the comments submitted by the respondent. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned adverse remarks and order of the respondent have been made against law and facts of the case. He also submitted that the adverse remarks so recorded by the Commissioner are male fide in nature. He has also made a grievance that the communication was to be made by the end of June whereas the adverse remarks were conveyed to him on 14-10-1982, vide Annexure-'A'. It has been vehemently argued that the Deputy Commissioner/immediate officer of the appellant has given him a very good report and thus adverse observation by the Commissioner was unwarranted both on facts as well as on law. In the end the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks given by the Commissioner was due to personal annoyance as the appellant got leave from the Government without routing it through the Commissioner.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant has got chequered record of service throughout his stay in the cadre and it is not the first incident that he has earned bad entry from the Commissioner but many other Commissioners also gave adverse remarks against him. According to the learned District Attorney the appellant had been lucky enough to secure expunction of the said adverse remarks although entry of the year 1978, still exists on his record without being expunged. It has been vehemently argued that the Commissioner Mr. H.R.
Pasha, bore no or malice against the appellant as in his detailed comments he has justified the remarks which according to him were based on the reputation of the appellant which the Commissioner gathered from official and non-official sources.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have carefully examined the service record of the appellant and find that the appellant got following adverse remarks from Commissioners:- {{TABLE TEXT}} 6-3-1976 to 31-12-1976 21-1-1977 to 22-6-1976 4-9-1977 to 31-12-1977 1-1-1978 to 12-4-1978 13-4-1978 to 10-8-1978 11-8-1978 to 13-12-1978 1-1-1979 to 30-4-1979 1-1-1981 to 13-12-1981 ' were pleased with him I but four different Commissioners like Mr. Muhammad Akram, Mr. Fazal Elahi Malik, Mr. G.M. Piracha and Mr. H.R. Pasha author of the present impugned entries were not satisfied with his work. We have also found that Mr. Azmat Ullah Khan, Deputy Commissioner also once did not consider him above board. Similarly District and Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan did not approve his conduct and work. We have also seen the opinion of another Judicial Officer and find that once upon a time Mr. Lutuf Ali Malik did not approve his work and conduct. Similarly we find that adverse entry still exists on his record, which was given to him by Khan A zamat Ullah Khan and approved by Mr. Fazal Elahi Malik, Commissioner at the relevant time. This being the situation we have to a (sic) the present entry against him keeping in view the past history of his case. The appellant has alleged malice against the Commissioner which in fact he has not been able to prove in any manner of whatsoever. The comments of the Commissioner are detailed and lucid and he has rightly said that the reputation of the officer is always gathered from the impression which he has created about his performance among the public and his superiors.
7. We have carefully analysed the entire case of the appellant and cannot remain oblivious of the fact that he has been adversely observed not by one particular officer but a number of Commissioners so mentioned above in the earlier part of our judgment including the present author of the entry in dispute, therefore, it becomes very difficult to accept that all these different Commissioners bore malice or grudge against the appellant, a fact nowhere argued or touched in the appeal. In view of this, the irresistible conclusion would be that the appellant did carry certain reputation which did come to the notice of the Commissioner, but he was lucky enough to get those entries expunged except the one which relates to the year 1978. We have now to assess the comments of the Commissioner, keeping in view the entire background of the case and it would not be possible for us to hold that all the persons at the level of Commissioners had arraigned against the appellant at various times so as to mar his career. It will be preposterous to accept such like proposition. In the light of the above circumstances and analysis so made by us keeping in view the chequered record of service of the appellant, we do not feel any justification to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Secretary (respondent), or to take a different view that the Commissioner Mr. H.R. Pasha, so expressed by him in his detailed comments on the record.
8. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed as being without any merit. However, there will be no order as to costs.