' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Muhammad Akram Alvi, Assistant Design Engineer, 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, Communication and Works Department, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks be ordered to be expunged by the respondent and appeal be accepted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was given the following adverse entry in his A.C.R.
For the period from 1-1-1982 to 29-8-1982:- "An average Officer. Too rigid in his working with his office fellows."
PART VI
(b) Fitness for promotion: Not yet fit for promotion."
He filed representation against the same which stood rejected vide Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department's letter dated 28-5-1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case with their assistance.
5. The appellant has submitted that it was the duty of the Reporting Officer first to counsel the appellant to improve certain aspects of his career and only if he had failed to do so then he could make adverse entry in his A.C.R. It has been further submitted that there was no justification with the Reporting Officer to justify his remarks, therefore, the same were liable to be expugned.
According to the Appellant the remarks were based on male fide and were recorded for punishing the appellant because of the personal grudge against him nursed due to a complaint by the appellant to the Chief Engineer which he made in the public interest.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the detailed justification given by Mr. Qamar-ur-Rehman, former Director, Building Research Station, Lahore, now Superintending Engineer, Highway Mechanical Circle, Lahore, and has submitted that the conduct of the appellant throughout the period he served under him, had been a conduct of person who was always playing foul with his colleagues as well as officers. According to the learned District Attorney the adverse remarks were justified and are liable to be maintained in the A.C.R.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and find that the Reporting Officer has given ample justification by quoting instances about the behaviour of the appellant vis- a-vis his superior and subordinates. The Reporting Officer has clearly averred that a number of letters were issued in the name of the appellant asking him to improve his work but it did not have any effect on him. He enclosed some of the copies of the letters alongwith justification so given by him. He has further referred to the appellant's quarrel with Storekeeper of Building Research Station in which cases were registered in Police Station by both the parties against each other. While giving reference to the said incident he has brought on record that the appellant always wanted to leave his work on the pretext of attending the said Court proceedings for which he was responsible himself but at the same time wanted the Government to pay for his T.A. And D.A. According to the Reporting Officer this was not allowed but the appellant insisted for the same and refused to submit casual leave application on the date of attendance of the Court. He also refused to hand over the charge to whom it was ordered and also refused to accept the dak sent to him and slipped away from office without any information. We are fully satisfied that the Reporting Officer has been able to justify his observations that he was too rigid in his working with his office fellows.
Be that it may, we cannot agree with the Reporting Officer that his observation about the appellant i,e, "Average Officer" could be conveyed to him as it has never been considered adverse. Similarly his observation 'Not yet fit for promotion' although exists on the A.C.R. But this too cannot be considered as adverse according to rules laid down in this behalf. If the Reporting Officer would have observed 'unfit for promotion' that would have been a different matter. Such like observation would have to be conveyed.
8. In view of the above we maintain the observation of the Reporting Officer "Too rigid" as the same has been fully justified by him vis-a-vis the conduct of the appellant but the rest of the entries should not have been conveyed to him. These remaining entries would be deemed to have not been conveyed to him. With these observations the appeal is disposed of as such. There will be no order as to costs.