' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). - S. Muhammad Qasim Rizvi. Tehsildar of Bahawalpur Division, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Mr. B. A. Farooqi, Ex-A. C., Fort Abbas now Assistant Commissioner, D.
G. Khan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 18th May, 1982 and 2nd August, 1983/2nd October, 1983, be set aside and the impugned adverse remarks be expunged from the A. C. R. Of the appellant for the year 1981.
3. Brief facts of the case are that by letter dated 18th May, 1982 the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the period from 1st January, 1981 to 7th October, 1981, by respondent No, 1.
Aggrieved against this, the appellant submitted a detailed representation 14th June, 1981, in which he stated facts and figures and indicated that the remarks were not only unjustified according to the record but were completely mala fide. As the decision of the said representation was delayed, appellant submitted another application dated 14th September, 1983 for an early communication of the decision. The appellant received letter dated 2nd October, 1983, with which a copy of letter dated 2nd June, 1983, was supplied to the appellant, according to which appellant's aforesaid representation had been considered and rejected. 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 with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has based his case on the issue of malice which according to him was the outcome of adverse remarks. He has attributed this malice towards Mr. B. A. Farooqi, then Assistant Commissioner who initiated the aforesaid adverse remarks against him. It has been vehemently argued that the Reporting Officer has been very rude and used abusive language to the Patwaris and other staff. Consequently this caused good deal of annoyance amongst the Patwaris who resorted to a general strike in September, 1981. According to the learned counsel the Reporting Officer got an impression that in fact this strike was generated and supported by the appellant and thus he made up his mind to injure him by giving him sweeping adverse report under columns Judgment and sense of proportion, initiative and drive, co-operation and tact.
Intellectual and general integrity and found him inclined to be arrogant. In pen picture he made a devastating observation against the appellant but according to the learned counsel for the appellant this would show the biased mind against the appellant. While concluding the arguments learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant has put in 26 years service and did not earn any .Adverse report although he had worked under a large number of Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners. He has also referred to the A. C. R. Of the appellant for the subsequent year of 1982, which according to him was quite satisfactory.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has fully relied on the detailed comments of Mr. B. A.
Farooqi, Assistant Commissioner, Fort Abbas addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. He has stated that the Reporting Officer has fully stood by the same and given cogent reasons and as there was not material on the record to prove any malice or bias against him therefore the same may be maintained.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the learned Assistant Commissioner in his five pages comments submitted that it was to his personal knowledge that the appellant resorted thousands of rupees to the persons from whom he had accepted illegal gratification either direct or through Patwaris and Girdawars. To quote a specific instance Muhammad Younas Karyana merchant Fortabbas received back two thousand rupees from the appellant who had extorted this amount earlier from the said shopkeeper for delaying registration of a document. He has held the appellant responsible for indulging in corrupt practice and also encouraging the field staff to start agitation. It is also in his comments that the appellant had instigated the Tehsil staff to go on strike. We further find that the Assistant Commissioner was eye-witness to the way of living of the appellant as being his next door neighbour. He has indicated that the appellant's spending was extravagant and to his household he maintained crockery, ornaments, tape records, television, refrigerator, carpets and furniture, which indicate the standard of appellant was beyond his ostensible means of income. According to the learned Assistant Commissioner he consumed three packets of Gold Leaf cigarettes daily and his two grown up sons were having separate brand new motorcycles. With regard to the efficiency of the appellant he has submitted that this can be adjudged from hundreds of files now consigned in the record room and the notes and reports on the files clearly indicate sluggardness and lethargy of the appellant.
8. This being the situation particularly in the face of established facts that nothing on the record has been brought by the appellant to show that his Assistant Commissioner was in any way inimical towards him, it would not be possible for us to disbelieve the said Reporting Officer, when he has taken up himself to be an eye-witness to all these happenings which we have quoted in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Furthermore these entries have been countersigned by the next higher authority, therefore, we do not find any reason to doubt the same.
9. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.