' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Muhammad Munir-ul-Haq Butt has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the orders dated 21-7-1980 passed by respondent No,2 and adverse remarks reported in the A.C.R. Of the appellant for the period from 1- 7-1979 to 30-6-1980. He has impleaded the Director-General, Excise and Taxation Punjab, Lahore.
The Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan Division, Multan and Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and the adverse remarks for the period from 1-7-1979 to 30-6-1980, be ordered to be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed vide letter dated 21-7-1980, that his performance not up to the mark. He detected only two cases throughout the year and those too jointly with the Police. The countersigning authority endorsed the same observation. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant made a representation against the said remarks but did not receive any reply. 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 record of this case with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid lot of stress on the point that there was no criteria fixed for detection of cases of the nature in which the appellant has been so adversely commented upon, therefore, such like adverse entry was hardly of any justification. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant's area like Lodhran would not be a place to detect a large number of cases therefore, the assessment about the performance of the appellant was unjustified.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the record of this case would reveal that when the appellant was communicated these adverse remarks he was able to detect about 34 cases, therefore, it would be unfair to say that the area was barren and cases of this nature were not likely to be detected. It was submitted that whatever the Reporting Officer had stated, was correct according to the record as the appellant had only detected 2 cases and that too jointly with the Police, therefore, the observation was just a variation of hard facts which could not be denied.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and are of the considered opinion that the arguments of the learned District Attorney are not without force. The fact of the matter is that the appellant did detect only 2 cases during the period under assessment and that too jointly with the Police and whereas when he was conveyed adverse remarks in this regard, he was able to detect almost 34 cases. This would clearly show that if he had made efforts during the period under assessm ent he would have succeeded the way he succeeded at the later stage.
8. The result is we do not find any reason to interfere with the assessment made by the Reporting Officer about the appellant. The appeal is dismissed as being without any merit. However, there will be no order as to costs.