' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Hadi Raza Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Social Welfare and Zakat Department, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks relating to the period from 1-1- 1980 to 11-5-1980, be expunged and the impugned order dated 16-6-1980, and final order dated 28- 3-1982, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant working in the Directorate of Social Welfare, was following adverse remarks by Miss Khalida Khatoon Malik Deputy Director ( HQ) on behalf of the Director-General, Social Welfare Punjab, Lahore; relating to the period from 1-1-1980 to 11-5-1980:- "As Manager Sanatzar, Kasur, he failed miserably. An incipient officer who has no initiative or control over his subordinates. Unfit for any field job."
' He made representation against the said adverse entries which was however, rejected. 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 comments of the respondent in this behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has expressed that during his 3 years stay at Kasur he was visited by the advisor to Government of Pakistan as well as the Provincial Ministers and all of them considered his working upto the mark. He was posted as Manager, Sanatzar in view of his past good performances. Learned counsel has made a grievance that in fact the officer was short of staff and was holding the charge of two posts, therefore, it might have affected his efficiency. Lastly it has been urged that as no specific instance of his working has been cited, the remarks are unjustified.
6 . We have carefully perused the reply of the respondent with the assistance of the learned District Attorney, wherein it has been stated that the appellant's appointment as Manager, Sanatzar was made in the public interest and not on account of his good performance. It has been reported that this officer is well-known for his confirmation with the subordinates. An instance has been quoted about his spending of Rs,4,429.96 on the purchase of forms etc. Out of loan amount, for which he was not allowed to do so as the amount has been drawn from the D.A.O. The respondent has taken a stand that the adverse comments relate to a particular period and his later performance would not in any manner wash away the assessment of the officer which was based on good reasons and on sound ground.
7. In view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the adverse entries so made against the appellant, which have been fully justified by the Reporting Officer. It is also on the record that this Officer had a chequered career vis-a-vis his subordinates and as reported by the Reporting Officer in his comments he was well-known for this aspect of his. A definite example has also been quoted by the said officer and, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the well-considered assessm ent of his work for the period under report and dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.