S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Rana Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Extra Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order of respondent refusing to expunge adverse remarks recorded in A.C.R. For 4-7-1981 to 31- 12-1981. He has impleaded the Punjab Government through Additional Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, recorded in the confidential report of the appellant for the period 4-7-1981 to 31-12-1981, as under:- "Forms wrong views and then persists in them; is not open to correction."
The appellant made a representation against the said observation so conveyed to him to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, but the same was rejected vide Annexure 'C' and he was informed that the Government decided to retain the remarks on his A.C.R.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant leas submitted that the observations made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, about the work of the appellant are based on two events, one occurring in the year 1981 and the other occurring in the year 1982. It has been submitted that it is an established practice under the rules that the remarks can only be given about the work and conduct of a civil servant for the period to which it relates. Learned counsel has taken exception to the comments of the learned District and Sessions Judge, wherein he has justified his observation on the strength of the event which occurred in 1982. He has placed on record, the judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge, as well as the order of the appellant to which the learned District. Attorney has taken exception. With regard to the single instance of the year 1981, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that on 28-11-1981, two accused were produced before him in F.I.R. No. 32/81 of Police Station Saddar Faisalabad in a case under section 10/11 Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance for remand. The appellant did not find it a fit case for remand and after refusing the remand, he directed the accused to be produced before the District and Sessions Judge as according to his views, he was not competent to grant bail as the case was exclusively triable before the Sessions Court. The learned District and Sessions Judge called the appellant in his chamber and told him that he had jurisdiction to grant bail even in murder cases and directed him that in future he should decide the case himself as he had the jurisdiction. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that since then the appellant had obeyed the order of the Sessions Judge and corrected his earlier view in such matters, therefore, it should have not made a basis of A.C.R. It has been vehemently argued that one single instance and that too in which the appellant had accepted the guidance of the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be considered as persistent act on the part of the appellant to form wrong view and thus to dub him as a person incorrigible.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments so filed by the District and Sessions Judge and has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has reported in his comments that the remarks were based on the general impression of the views of the officer gained from his judgments and orders which came for consideration in appeals and revisions from time to time. He has also conceded that they were partly based upon the cases referred to by the Reporting Officer pertaining to the year 1982.
7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have taken full note of the comments of the Reporting Officer as well as case so mentioned in the said comments pertaining to the year 1982. We have no hesitation to conclude that the learned Sessions Judge was not within his competence to take notice of a case pertaining to the year, 1982, while assessing the work of the appellant for the period under report, which positively related to the year 1981. This is a settled law by our various judgments and we one again reiterate the same. With regard to the point that the overall assessment of the work of a civil servant is always within the ambit of his superiors, we have no dispute with the same but always require sound justification for such assessm ent keeping in view the Standing Orders and instructions from time to time issued by the Government for writing of A.C.Rs. In the present case, what we find is that the learned Sessions Judge beside making reference to the event of 1982, has reported that his assessment was based on various orders and judgments which came before him in appeals and revisions that he formed opinion that the appellant was formulating wrong views and then was persisting in the same. It would not be possible for us to disbelieve a positive statement made by the Judicial Head of a District, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to an honest assessm ent of work of the appellant which came under review from time to time before the learned Sessions Judge.
8. The result is, we have no reasons to interfere with the well---considered order of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, who after fully taking into consideration all the points raised by the appellant in his representation, decided to turn down the same. The appeal is dismissed as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.
M. I.