' The appellant has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, and the Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks contained in Annexure 'A' for the period 1-7-1980 to 30-6-1981 be expunged and the order of respondent No,2, dated 18-1-1982 and respondent No, 1, dated 25-10-1982 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant, for the period from 1-7-1980 to 30-6-1981 vide Director-General Excise and Taxation Punjab by letter, dated 18-1-1982. The appellant made this appeal to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore which was rejected as conveyed by Director-General, Excise and Taxation Punjab, Lahore vide letter, dated 25-10-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that while the appellant was working as {{BLUR PAGE}} .,:.Assistant:: Excise iand :Taxatibrr,;-Officierr;f GitiranWitia4SlarViiriadqn4000( place between the appellant- 3andoi;tne.:Excise,;alickniTaxation-i;.01Tieer Gujranwala on 1-6-1981, which resulted in minor penalty of censure to ,thelipPellant,,Thiswalsmileed-loAhe-,enter. Of:'qicivereel remarks in the r..A.QtR:--:;--;ofi.The .Appellahther the per 1,n7-18807,,t0447.6-4981. It has beertil;ftirtheVAubmitted by-,lhe learne4.:Faiunset-for3 the, appellant that _thisoihOedhappened AittieL;,-;te 7an,mnfortunaW dispute iztotweenfihim- and his feuperisir1;3;;Qh'.::-.1,4asir; Ahmed regarding allotment of room .-io: the office. Though ytilvIsItsaqotiwasa settled it01.icAt:tly:!IZtRA:Woen the appellant and his ^suPeltior; '13Nen;7fhow: this ilitliiJed:Ms:5%111'r of adverse remarks in his A've,--kli. Asii.mentionedahovevLOliwasilpointede9A4t by the leilt'ined counsel 101 thesiappellaot-Jhat the appells-nt:'Wos mwsured due, to.!Abovev incident by iiHreOtoOr :,Excise and Taxatafon,:videv his:, order, dated2.i1itA71982. On 1118:-appeaVtothe:DirectortGeoerai Excise,:and the. So imposed was vacated by the EtireeteriGeowaski P'Clac:and. Taxation vide his order, dated 30-10- 1982. As the very basis of this issue were with4rftwn,:,,by.,,Aho,,, departteen.0110A4.04104esil -beree, there was no justification of these adverse remarhs,:arid ,shattld . Have also been withdrawn.
Concluding his arguments; the learned counsel for the ..:,appellant has submitted that on the principles of ;fair play, equity and justice, the respondents are bound W. Expunge the adverse remarks, as they have themselvea,dismahtled the foundation on whiqh these adverse remarks were built.
5. ' Controverting the -above arguments' of the. Learned counsel for ithe; appellant,- the learnedz- Distriet Attorney haS 'pOinted tititr that the Impugned order ,,; ;Iated 103-4982 (L by Which' t he appellant WaSThe h a u red lait the evidence on !VettA clearly Siews that=tha-' appellaht' 'had i-'Misbehaved with --titelittifttrrtetoWO et tit h tts ;'1-the rilikS)Ildlialildt lied ii .4-Wly 'i I la rdVed kagai net hiii. It ,,,, Wone,'submitted :---11y-0 the - learned Di- Strict-- Attorney 1-that the -.Adverse 3reeiarkeir,rinerded;lw the appellantla MC AO I for 1 the year 1980-81 have been recorded correctly and lawfullvilsaw.l. t)c1:)vbs I hay9gAvAn 04,..(inxious tits`vigliti /9 th,4 appypvits of the parities Have Or. ,F0144ftk ltig!,:ife94 tp -9ii,C#0e. ,Wilive also perild hp cop.mht2,rfprpiik. Yi.Api,,,Wcpise' 411413'440 OttirpOi copc0hgd ijazat:A 0,5/14) epogi ng: Officer I 4.1 Ili " re' iMtliffitiOn ; i?f Rolla qirfir;e km JO? A iidyerse re mfiiii,p WOO read" "as ;141.1c2WR; - A _ , 5 I )t, . Li ifiC3el'`%(4 ''!' a). i:.:;',.(flominentskt offerekl by -Via LttisebAilld::: Ta.Xatien-'Officer ib..,tef:do uporsze riled u(i :o', tie*. ,Nazir A. Limed ) vitgthe i*prOsentittiontare(xis liii tlz.Iliirolltois:;-41st;:n-qcii, ,ot-,- .4;,ill :ma ! ,c)RED I.SitOilkei ithil P 1 :.111A (...j i::.!,(;;; bil's risi A Ifx:d ..Hnls:laflt1T, %RN ibitivt 1.0.'11:?- .i'fl 01 iltt,!=i9OEOCIfl _ I EIJC1 . sib !..; t:)iitioo,:itrit 4V.4 4rd,,.-"44. _,,"111," r. JigrfsteA,,Pffi 961 ,';i5z:;,.4 :}'it lrii,.9:1F..g4.Fi-) 49 at ,,91,?v,)fn 1A3g,:leffalllt iitSdMict9Pi pnit' '"riPif4i0Liq tt,m;-:41.1 'ow* -06;,*-,poOdict., virOlt, ,f-#14, on acid AC !t0 , *017440:099R4f49ftg:P195(: which was accepted on humanitarian grounds.' In his 'iwi.5,4,4-1 'i.Itr representation top the orpo#4,hakAiu:d so again and again. r-,i b,,,b_.,__, For that matter I haVe tad p44jectiontftthe,regitest of the 'VIA p I d ' I( -- - iniOtO is Co id re ii-J-,;':-(''' o 'jPiliPia, " grkAi.1,1e .41-slslicPP;#F1 , F1 s.=considered and representation is decided on Merits pleasg,7, Though these comments were offered by the reporting officer, even then, these did not find favotirita thet'tlireetor'Exeise `and 'Taxation Lahore and Gujranwala Divisions, who did not agree for expunction of .Adverse remarks. While forwarding the representation of the appellant on 15th September, 1982 to the Director-General Excise and Taxation Punjab, Lahore the Director, Excise and Taxation Lahore and Gujranwala Divisions made the following recommendation:- "3. As for as the facts of the case are concerned, the official, while serving in the Excise and Taxation Office Gujranwala as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, had a quarrel with Ch. Nazir Ahmad, the then Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala in connection with the allotment of office accommodation on 1-6-1981. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar being directly serving under the Excise and Taxation Officer was required not to disobey or pick up a quarrel in any circumstances. If he was aggrieved with the allotment even then he was not supposed to set a bad example of disobedience and in discipline. From the above it can easily be confirmed that his conduct for the period under report was not upto the mark and needed improvement.
' He has no claim for expunction of adverse remarks. His representation may please be rejected."
' It is worth mentioning that the same Director prior to this, vide his endorsement, dated 7-6-1983, conveyed the Excise and Taxation Officer Gujranwala that the penalty of "censure" imposed on the appellant had been vacated by the Director-General, Excise and Taxation Punjab and necessary 'entry be made in the service book of the appellant to this effect. This penalty of "censure" was imposed as a result of a quarrel as mentioned above which also resulted in the entry in appellant's A.C.R. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has a weight that the foundation, on which these adverse remarks were made in the A.C.R., has been dismantled themselves by the departmental authorities and thus there is every justification for expunction of these adverse remarks.
7. In the case of the expunction of adverse remarks, we always pay respect to the comments of the reporting officer. I find that in this case, the reporting Officer has commented favourably in favour of the appellant, due to the reasons that the appellant had tendered unconditional apology which was accepted by the reporting Officer and the matter was settled. The adverse remarks are conveyed to a person to mend himself and remove the defects so pointed out or communicated to him. In this particular case, I find that the appellant did realize his fault, apologized to his superior which was accepted by him and thus he had shown his improved conduct and behaviour. Also keeping the fact in view that the penalty of "censure" based on this conduct of the appellant was withdrawn by the departmental authorities, hence, there is every justification in expunction of the adverse remarks.
8. Keeping the above analysis in view, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and it is directed that the adverse remarks so recorded in the A.C.R. Of the appellant for the period from 1-7-1980 to 30-6-1981 be expunged.
' There will be no order as costs.