S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Abdul Rashid, Unit Supervisor, Agricultural Engineering Workshop, Sheikhupura, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Director Agricultural Engineering, Jhang Road, Faisalabad and the Agricultural Engineer, Lahore Division, Niazbeg Thokar, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 8-6-1985, relating to the adverse remarks conveyed, vide letter, dated 21-2-1985, be ordered to be expunged from his A. C. R.
For 1984.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed vide letter, dated 21-2-1983 by Director, Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad that he has been adversely commented in the A. C. R.
For the year ending 31-12-1984, as under:- "the official has been charge-sheeted. He could not achieve the target."
The appellant made a representation for the said expunction of remarks to the next higher authority but the same was rejected, vide letter, dated 8-6-1985, addressed to him by the Director Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad, by which he was told that his representation has been considered in the light of the comments of the Agricultural Engineer, Lahore Division, Lahore. And has been so 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 at length and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks could be divided into two parts. According to him, one would be "official has been charge-sheeted" and the second would be "he could not achieve the target". With regard to the first part, he has relied on Correction Slip No. 25 to the Booklet entitled "Instructions about Confidential Reports" and further Notification No. SOR-IV(S&GAD) 14-5/82 dated 25-3-1984. According to the learned counsel in these instructions, it has been laid down that only the punishment imposed upon the Government servant should be placed on C.R. Dossier provided that such an order is placed on C.R. Dossier of the accused after he has exhausted all remedies available for review or appeal before the competent authority or the Punjab Service Tribunal, as the case may be. According to the learned counsel for the appellant as the appellant has yet to exhaust the remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal, for which he had already moved, the mention of the sentence that he has been charge- sheeted, should not have been conveyed.
6. With regard to the second part of the adverse entry, it has been submitted that the appellant was given a favourable assessm ent of his work by the Reporting Officer but the countersigning authority Mr. M.A. Majid, Agricultural Engineer, without any justification, observed that he failed to achieve the target. He has relied on a number of documents so appended with his appeal in the form of comparative chart to show that his work was neither below average nor below the target.
7. On the other hand, learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Director, Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad as well as Agricultural Engineer, Lahore, and has submitted that without making any comments on the letter so referred to above issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, S G A & I Department he would only address this Tribunal on the merits of the second part of the adverse comments i.e. "that he did not achieve the target" and would submit that the same have been fully justified by respondents and the appellant had no reasons to take exception to the same when it was a fact that he failed to achieve the target fully established against him.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the letter so relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does give directive to the respondents that unless and until all the remedies are fully exhausted by the civil servant and the charge culminated against him for punishment the same should not be mentioned in the Dossier.
In view of the said letter, we are of the considered opinion that sentence that 'he has been charge- --sheeted' would be redundant and uncalled for and should be deleted.
9. With regard to the merits of the second sentence, there is ample justification given by respondents that the appellant had failed to achieve the target for the year 1984, therefore, the observation so made by the counter-signing authority, was justified.
10. With regard to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the same counter- signing authority had given him favourable assessment of his work in the earlier year, would not advance his case any further, as they would conversely show that the counter--signing authority was unbiased, independent and his observation was without malice. When the authority found his work perfect, he gave him good observation and when he found his target below average, he made the observation accordingly.
11. In the, light of the above discussion, we do not find any justification to expunge the second observation 'that he failed to achieve' the target' and dismiss the appeal accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
A.E.