S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Sh. Abdul Jabbar, Settlement Commissioner has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Secretary, SGA 1 I Department (Secret Section), Government of the Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks for the period 1-1-1979 to 6-5-1979, conveyed to him, vide letter, dated 30-12-1981, be set aside as well as the order, dated 31-8-1982, by which his representation was rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was adversely reported for the period from 1-1-1979 to 6-5-1979 by his Reporting Officer when he was working in the Local Government Department. It was observed as under:- "(1)Ability to plan organize and supervise work below average (2)Capacity to guide and train subordinates.-do-- (3)Cooperation and tact.-do-- (4)Interest in Social Welfare."Is inclined to treat this aspect as his routine function.
(5)Unfit for retention 25 years service".Sh. Abdul Jabbar stayed in Local Government Department for only 5 (Pen-picture)months during which he did not show such aptitude for hold and sustained work."
The appellant filed a representation to the higher authority which was rejected, vide order, dated 31-8-1982. 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 perused the entire record of this case including the entire service record/ Character Roll very minutely.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the assessment of the work during the period from 1-1-1979 to 6-5-1979 in the Local Government Department was a biased assessment, due to malice of Mr. Ahmad Sadiq, Secretary Local Government, who somehow or other formed adverse opinion about him as he has failed to oblige him on many occasions for certain matters which the appellant has mentioned in paras. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the appeal. It has been further submitted that the service record of the appellant has been absolutely unblemished except of this adverse opinion, so recorded against him, therefore, has forcefully prayed that the remarks be expunged.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has totally relied on the written statement submitted on behalf of the respondent through Mr. Muhammad Yusaf, Section Officer (Secret), Service, General Administration and Information Department and has submitted that except oral assertion nothing has been brought on the record by the appellant to show that either the Reporting Officer or Mr. Ahmad Sadiq, Secretary, Local Government at the relevant time, bore any ill-will or malice against him, as the perusal of his earlier record would show that he had a number of adverse entries against him from time to time by different high ranking officers. It has been argued that the Reporting Officer has fully justified his comments and, therefore, there was hardly any reason to interfere with the same.
7. We have given our anxious thought so advanced by the parties and find that from the beginning of his service the appellant has been adversely reported by the Reporting Officers as well as countersigning authorities. In the years 1957, 1961, 1959, 1962 and 1964, there are entries against him which are adverse in nature, showing the appellant as a difficult person to be dealt with, as well as hardly, an officer who could be considered having smooth relations with his subordinates. These adverse entries also considered him an indiscipline person and to this effect, a warning was recorded in the A.C.R. Of 1961. We need not reproduce the other adverse entries which he earned from Syed Muhammad Qasim Rizvi, Mr. Fazalur Rehman, Mr. Ghulam Mujtiba and Mr. Muhammad Yusaf Khan etc. As it will serve no useful purpose to burden the record of this case. For the purpose of this appeal it is sufficient to hold that the claim of the appellant, that he has unblemished record of service, is not correct.
8. We have carefully perused the written statement as well as the comments of the Reporting Officer and find that the assessm ent of work of the appellant has been made on merits and the allegation of malice and bias has been totally denied. As his work was found substandard the Reporting Officer was constrained to observe accordingly and when he came to Local Government Department, it was found that he was a case of personality disintegration. This trait of character has been fully evinced by the appellant in the earlier years of his service to which we have already made a reference in the earlier part of our judgment.
9. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the assessment so made by the Reporting Officer, duly countersigned by the Countersigning Officer as the earlier adverse entries are still available on his A. C.R.s., which have not been so expunged. We also feel our duty to observe that while making representation or appeal for expunction of remarks, a civil servant should avoid making wild allegations against his superiors without the support of material/evidence on record and this by itself would be an act of indiscipline and insubordination.
10. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.