' ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Noor Ahmad Mirza, Magistrate 1st Class, Leiah, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar and Assistant Commissioner, Fort Abbas. District Bahawalnagar, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks recorded in his A. C. R.
Pertaining to the year 1982, be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Magistrate, Ist Class/E.A.C. Fort Abbas his A.C.R. For the year 1982, was recorded as under:_{{TABLE TEXT}} "Integrity
(a) Intellectual
(b) Moral } Below average.
Behaviour with public
(b) Counselling.
He was advised to improve his attitude towards the Bar and safeguard his integrity he endeavoured-succeeded to some extent may improve further with the passage of time."
(a) Overall Grading Meets bare minimum standard ... Below average. Fitness for promotion : ... Not yet fit for promo- tion.
' Remarks Recorded by the Countersigning officer ' His reputation was bad. As long as Mr. Farooqi was there to supervise him he remained under control but as soon as he left he opened up and started corruption."
' He filed a representation to the next higher authority which decided to retain these remarks. The appellant was informed accordingly by letter dated 9th May, 1984. 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 including his dossier as well as comments of the countersigning authority, with their assistance.
5. According to the learned, counsel for the appellant the appellant has put in 10 years service and his record was unblemished. It was further argued that during the said period of his stay at Fort Abbas, on complaints he initiated registration of cases against Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Bajwa, Advocate, Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Nizami, Advocate and Mr. Nazir Ahmad Wahla, Advocate, which cases were pending before various Courts. He has attached copies of F.
1. R. As annexure which is appended with the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that in the event of action taken by the appellant, the local Bar started villification campaign against him and thus poisoned the minds of the superiors which resulted into these adverse remarks against the appellant. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in fact this Bar affair related to the year 1983 which should not have been reflected in the A.C.R. Of the appellant pertaining to the year 1982, as laid down in the instructions for writing of Confidential Reports. With regard to the observations of the learned Commissioner that as long as Mr. Farooqi was there he was under control, it was submitted that hardly seven days of the departure of Mr. Farooqi this A. C. R. Came into existence, therefore, the Commissioner had no material to arrive at his finding.
6. Learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the learned Commissioner and has submitted that overall rating of the appellant by him would show that the adverse entries were fully justified. Learned District Attorney has further submitted that the very perusal of the Commissioner's comments would show that the conduct of the appellant was hardly a conduct of the officer entrusted with heavy/important administrative duties and even he scumbed to the acts attributed to him by the Commissioner which are of serious nature. He has fully supported the order of the Government by which his representation has been rejected.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the learned Commissioner had ample material documentary in nature to form an adverse opinion which he has formed. It has been stated in the comments of the Commissioner that the appellant was facing an enquiry regarding attesting the bogus and ante-dated affidavits while he was posted as E. A. C. Lahore. He has further referred to a case in which a person had died since long but the appellant shifted the date of death from one year from November, 1981 to December, 1980, to favour certain petitioners who had no genuine case. These two concrete cases so cited by the learned Commissioner would justify the assessment that this would only happen when there are ulterior motives behind the same.
8. With regard to the strained relations of the appellant with the Bar, a mention of the same has been made by the Assistant Commissioner also, who advised the appellant personally to refrain from the conduct which should be vulnerable and to create difficulties for him. A mention of this fact by the Assistant Commissioner himself would demolish the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that actually the affair related to the year 1982 regarding his strained relations with the Bar, which could not be Made subject-matter of assessment year 1982. We have also seen the dossier of the appellant and find that in the year 1979 he was considered not yet fit for promotion and the same was conveyed to him.
9. In the light of the above analysis of the case when we find that the learned countersigning authority as well as Reporting Officer have fully justified their assessment of work and conduct of the appellant we do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.