ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHARY (MEMBER). --Muhammad Mazhar Farid, Under Secretary (S & T)
Government of the Punjab, Cooperative Department, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals' Act 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the displeasure letter, dated 30-7-1984 be declared as illegal, unlawful and of no consequence and the same be ordered to be withdrawn.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed a displeasure on 30-7-1984 as follows:- "Please refer to the enquiry conducted by the Government on the charge of malpractices allegedly committed by you in the General Elections of 1977 during your posting as E.A.C. Kasur from 1-7-1976 to 30-10-1977. The enquiry conducted in the matter revealed that your conduct as E.A.C. Kasur during the General Elections of 1977 was not above board, although the charges against you could not be substantiated due to the technical/legal lacunae leading to lack of evidence. It has, therefore, been decided to convey to you the displeasure of the Government and to warn you to be more careful in future.
2. While conveying the above orders of the competent authority it is expected that you will make concerted efforts to bring about the required improvements. A copy of this letter is being placed in your C.R. Dossier."
The appellant represented against the above displeasure but the same was rejected vide letter of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Services General Administration and Information Department, dated 8-10-1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i.e. Dr. Khalid Ranjha and Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocates for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondent.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was charge- sheeted on the charges for committing irregularities/ malpractices during the General Elections of 1977. A detailed enquiry was held but no evidence could be adduced against the appellant and as such the M.L.A./Governor, Punjab after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and recommendation of the Authorised Officer exonerated the appellant of the above charges. He has referred to the order of exoneration, dated 20-4-1981 at Annexure 'A' of the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant has been conveyed a displeasure on the same charges from which the appellant stood exonerated. Thus, conveying of the displeasure on the same counts, is illegal, unlawful in much as the Governor of the Punjab while exercising all enabling power as Martial Law Administrator has exonerated the appellant of all the charges.
Thereafter, the appellant was also promoted and for four long years nothing was mentioned to him in respect of the contents of the displeasure letter. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the displeasure is not in confirmity with the order of the exoneration and be quashed being un-warranted and unlawful.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the appellant was exonerated from the charges due to technical/legal lacunae leading to lack of evidence by the M.L.A.I Governor, Punjab. However, while exonerating the appellant it was also ordered by the M.L.A./Governor that entry to this effect in his A.C.R. Also be made. Thus, the displeasure has been conveyed as ordered by the M.L. A. /Governor and no exception can be taken against the order passed by the Governor Punjab.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case very carefully. While deciding the case of the appellant the following orders were passed by the worthy M.L.A./Governor, Punjab on 6-4-1981:- "8. The case was discussed with M.L.A./Governor on 5th April, 1981. The Governor was pleased to observe that the conduct of Mr. Mazhar Farid E.A.C. Kasur in this case during 1977 elections was not above board but due to technical/legal lacunae leading to lack of evidence the two charges against him could not be substantiated. The officer is, therefore, exonerated of both the charges.
9. However, the desirability of making an entry to this effect in his A.C.R. May be considered."
Thus, the displeasure has been conveyed to the appellant as ordered by the worthy M.L.A./Governor and no exception can be taken against this order of the M.L.A./Governor.
8. The up-shot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order as to costs.
A.E.