S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Allah Yar Ansari, Extra Assistant Commissioner, Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Services Tribunals Act. 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that this Tribunal may set aside the adverse entries recorded by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan for the period from 1-1-1979 to 12-5-1979, and may further set aside the order contained in letter No. SO(C)1-106/77, dated 14-6-1982, communicated on 22-6-1982, upholding the said adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, observed in the A.C.R.
Of the appellant for the period from 1-1-1979 to 12-5-1979 as under:- "A mediocre officer who indulged in local party friction."
These remarks were communicated to the appellant by the Services, General Administration Department against which he filed representation on 13-12-1980, which was rejected by respondent No. 1 and communicated to the appellant on 22-6-1982. 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 also taken into consideration the comments of the Reporting Officer and also looked into all the A.C.Rs.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted and he has been given good account of himself in the said line, therefore, the Commissioner was not justified to consider him a medicore Officer. He has also relied on the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, D.G.
Khan, who according to the learned counsel have commended his work, therefore, the remarks of the Reporting Officer were not in accordance with the performance of the appellant. With regard to the assumption that he indulged in local party friction, it has been submitted that in fact he was an independent officer and never indulged in any party friction. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal placed on record, dated 30-12-1979, pertaining to the period from 17-7- 1978 to 31-12-1978, which according to the said judgment stood expunged as it was observed that the Commissioner was not in a position to justify his assumption.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the record of the appellant is not that bright which he has claimed before this Tribunal as the entry of the year 1976 contains that he was considered corrupt by the District and Sessions Judge and that still exist on his A. C.R. It has been further submitted that even latest performance in the year 1982, has also been adversely reported and all along he has been considered only an average Officer. Let of stress has been laid by the learned District Attorney on the report of the commenting Officer i.e. Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, who has given the background of his assessment and has observed that in fact his observation against the appellant were lenient in nature although he deserved much worse.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and without giving the details of certain events, which the learned Commissioner has mentioned in his comments, as the narration of the same is likely to come to the notice of Public, in case the judgment is reported, and thus would only give our findings as to whether the learned Commissioner has been able to justify his comments or not with respect to his assessment so made for the period under report. After going through the comments as well as the entire A.C.Rs. Of the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner has fully justified his comments and also agree with him with the said A background of the appellant in his knowledge, he has treated him quite leniently. In these circumstances we do not find any reason to direct the respondents to expunge the remarks so made by the Reporting Officer and upheld by the learned Additional Chief Secretary vide his order, dated 14-6-1982 communicated to the appellant on 22-6- 1982.
8. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
There will be no orders as to costs.
M. I.