' S. ABDUL JABSAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Muhammad Naseem Sipra, Section Officer, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through the Additional Chief Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the entire A.C.R. Under appeal pertaining to the period 1-1-1981 to 4-4-1981, be expunged as the same is based on personal malice of the Reporting officer.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks, vide D.O.No, 1- 345/77, dated 9-3-1983, by the Deputy Secretary (A), Services, General Administration and Information Department Annexure "I". He filed representation against the same before the Additional Chief Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department in which he cited lot of facts about his performance and laid a great stress of personal bias of the Deputy Commissioner. His representations for expunction of adverse remarks were considered and rejected both on merit as well as for using intemperate language, vide letter dated 11-6-1983.
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 submitted that Government Letter No, 1-345/77, dated 9- 3-1983, was an afterthought and had been written 11 months after the writing of the C.R. Under appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this communication had been inordinately delayed and the remarks communicated to him merit elimination from the C.R. It has been further submitted that the A.C.R. Under appeal could 'not be initiated by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Sheikh himself as the same was against the rules and practice and, therefore, was void. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid lot of stress on the mis-deeds of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Sheikh, Reporting Officer and had argued that he was personally bent upon doing harm to the appellant, therefore, the remarks were liable to be ignored. He has further pointed out that in all Police- Magistracy meetings for the months of January and February, 1981 the work of the appellant was considered as good, therefore, there was no justification to consider him below average or poor.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, this claim of the appellant was fully supported in respect of the note recorded by Mr. Bashir Shaikh, the then Deputy Commissioner. He has further relied on the affidavits of a large number of persons from all walks of life filed as Annexures XI to XLV, to show that he enjoyed a very good reputation among the elected members of Mianwali as well as of the Bar.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali as well as the comments of the Reporting Officer himself, in which, according to him the allegation of malice had been stoutly denied.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that according to instruction No, 4 of writing of Confidential Reports, the minimum period laid down for the purpose of writing of report on the work and conduct of subordinate is 3 months. It has been found from the record that the Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali who took over charge of the post on 17-1-1981, was not competent to record his opinion on the work and conduct of the appellant in his capacity as Extra Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali, for the period from 1-1-1981 to 4-4-1981, as he had worked under him for a period of less than 3 months. In these circumstances, the report was initiated by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Sh. , Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali, himself. This being so we do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Deputy Commissioner could not initiate the A.C.R.
8. During the course of arguments as well as from the record of this case we do not find anything constructive which could persuade us to hold that the said Deputy Commissioner nurtured any personal malice or bias against the appellant. The fact of the matter is that six trucks carrying paddy were taken into custody by the Chakrala Police in case F.I.R. No, 79, dated 3-12-1980, registered under section 3/6 of Punjab Foodstuff (Control) Act, 1958, which were released on "Sapurdari" by the appellant. In fact the appellant was not competent to do so as he was not appointed as Food Tribunal under section 9(h) of the Punjab Foodstuff (Control) Act, 1958, there he had no jurisdiction to decide any matter in the said case. It is also on the record that on account of appellant's failure in the observance of the law and his status/jurisdiction, a departmental action was held against him in which his increments for two years with cumulative effect were stopped.
We further find that an order, dated 28-6-1981 passed in consequence of the enquiry against an official of his office, it was held that the appellant being the Presiding Officer of the Court was equally responsible for not exercising proper control regarding the work of the dismissed officials/late deposit of fines into the Government Treasury as required by rules 3,5(iii) and 25 of Chapter II, Volume II of the High Courts Rules and Orders. It was held that in two cases State v.
Karim Dad and State v. Mehr Khan, the fine of Rs,200 and Rs,500 was imposed by the Court, on 22- 10-1977 and 10-11-1977, while the appellant was posted as Extra Assistant Commissioner, Isa Khel but this fine was actually deposited into Government Treasury in the year 1980, viz. After a lapse of 3 years although he was duty bound to enter every fine received for being deposited in the Fine Register with his own hand and the verification of the realization of each day paid in the Government Treasury under Rules 19 and 25 of the Rules ibid. Learned Reporting Officer has further submitted that during the tenure of his office under him he found that his general reputation of integrity was doubted and the appellant was flouting the instructions of Government at his own whim and fancy.
9. Learned District Attorney has also further pointed out that the appellant has used highly intemperate language in his representations addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, which was very unfortunate and against the good conduct of a civil servant. We have carefully perused the epresentations made by the appellant and have no hesitation to agree with the learned District Attorney as well as Reporting Officer that the appellant has made insinuation of serious nature against the Reporting Officer going to the extent that he approached him in judicial matter and forced him to decide the case as he liked. Such like allegations are very easy to allege in order to malign his superiors and if we permit the same, this would mean encouraging the subordinate to say anything he likes in order to create a defence of malice against his superior. If this tendency is not strongly discouraged, the Reporting Officer will become always vulnerable to such like allegations and it will .Not be possible for him to make an honest assessment of work of subordinate, ubordinate, as he would be afraid that once he has done so, lot of mud-slinging will be done against him. Learned Additional Chief Secretary who considered the representations of the appellant, was fully justified to hold that the use of intemperate language will always go against the civil servant besides the merits of the case. In para. 4 of the ground of appeal, the appellant himself has admitted that in his representations against the adverse remarks recorded by Mr. Bashir Shaikh in A.C.R., he brought glaring mis-deeds of said Reporting Officer which were the basis of said remarks so recorded by him. Such like language against his superiors cannot be encouraged and this tribunal takes a serious note of the same.
10. After reading carefully the comments of the Reporting Officer as well as comments of the respondent No, 1, we are of the considered opinion that the assessment made by the Reporting Officer has been fully justified by him and the learned Additional Chief Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department has rightly rejected the representations so filed by the appellant before him.
11. In view of the above analysis of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly, with costs.