' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Riasat All Virk has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore Division, Lahore 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 so contained in letter, dated 14-5-1981 and the final Order, dated 30-1-1982/27-3-1982 be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks in his A.C.R. For the period 1-1-1980 to 23-6-1980 vide letter, dated 14-5-1981 from the Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore Division, Lahore to the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala as follows:- "9. Does not enjoy good reputation.
12. Conduct needs improvement for confirmation."
The appellant submitted representation (Annexure 'B') to the respondent No,2 which was rejected vide his letter, dated 30-1-1982 (Annexure '.C') conveyed to the appellant on 27-3-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that these adverse remarks were as a result of complaint made by Mr. Abdul Aziz son of Lal Din when the appellant was working at Sialkot. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that an enquiry in this case was conducted by Ch. Nazir Ahmad Dhillori, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer and the complaint was filed for want of sufficient proof. As the complaint could not be proved against the appellant, hence there was no reason for making these adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Of the appellant on the basis of complaint which could not be ultimately substantiated and proved. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entry of the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Of the appellant has been made without any justification, hence this be quashed and directed to be expunged from the A.C.R. Of the appellant.
5. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore and Gujranwala Divisions, Lahore on this appeal of the appellant. The learned District Attorney has submitted that full justification has been given in these parawise comments and also in the comments of the Reporting Officer.
Hence there is no justification for expunction of the adverse remarks so recorded in the A.C.R. Of the appellant which are fully justified. "
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. In dealing with the case of the expunction of adverse remarks, we always carefully peruse and scrutinise the comments of the Reporting Officer to see the justification of the adverse remarks so recorded by him. In this case we have gone through the report of the Reporting Officer who has offered the remarks as follows:- "That during his stay at Sialkot, one Mr. Abdul Aziz son of Lal Din Arain, made a written complaint against the Excise and Taxation Inspector wherein he levelled allegations that Mr. Riasat All Virk, E&TI wanted him to accommodate woman in case he brings in his hotel situated just in front of E.T.O. Office, Sialkot, and on his refusal to accede to his request he threatened for dire consequences. An inquiry in this connection was conducted by Ch. Nazir Ahmad Dhillon, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer but the complaint was ultimately filed for want of sufficient proof. The conduct of the official however, cannot be said to have been above board."
We are satisfied and agree with the report of the Reporting Officer; and find that the complaint against the appellant was filed for want of sufficient proof as reported by the Enquiry Officer and the conduct of the appellant cannot be said to have been above board.
7. Keeping the above facts in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
' There will be no order as to costs.