S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Shahid Makhdoom has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Director, Agriculture Crops Reporting Service Punjab Lahore Government of the Punjab through Secretary Agriculture, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks communicated by respondent No. 1 on 22-6-1981 and rejection of his appeal by respondent No.2 on 19/20-8-1981 be set aside in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the period from 1-1-1980 to 2-9-1980, while he was posted under the Junior Statician Crop Agriculture Department Lahore, through the Administrative Officer on 22-6-1981. He made a representation to the Director Agriculture who rejected the same, vide order, dated 19/20-8-19131. However, the appellant did not file any appeal to the higher authority as the same did not lie and has approached this Tribunal by filing the present appeal. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned D.A. Assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
The main stay of the appellant in this case is that this report is the outcome of malice of Mr. M.A.
Khan Director Agriculture who at one time during the course of service of the appellant tried to harm him by standing in his way for promotion. It has been urged that as the appellant ultimately succeeded by getting himself promoted despite the opposition of Mr. M.A. Khan, the said Mr. Khan was awaiting a chance to hurt and manoeuvred this report against him through one of his subordinates and later on rejected his appeal when. The same was filed before him. Learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the facts, which the respondent in this case has highlighted as the grounds for holding that the appellant was a failure as Statician in Kasur District.
Learned counsel while arguing this case has referred to the incident which has also been taken adversely against the appellant with regard to the loss of cash book by one of his subordinates. It has been submitted that for this incident, only the cashier could be held responsible and not the appellant who was least connected with the incident but rather had made a complaint against the said cashier for which he was punished by reversion from his post, which he was holding at that time. A number of documents have been annexed by the learned counsel for the appellant pertaining to the struggle of seniority and promotion on the part of the appellant to show that Mr. M.A. Khan opposed the efforts of the appellant tooth and nail. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that nowhere in the annexed documents or anywhere on the record of the concerned office, it is established that Mr. M.A. Khan opposed the appellant for his promotion. On the contrary it has been pointed out that Mr. M.A. Khan was the person who recommended his name and nowhere has disowned the same. In this manner it was contended that Mr. M.A. Khan had no ill-will or grudge against the appellant. Learned D.A. Has also referred to an allegation made by the appellant in his appeal that in fact Mr. M.A. Khan was annoyed with the appellant as the appellant made lot of probes into the complaint made against one Amjad Idrees, Computor Clerk who allegedly was a son of his friend. Learned D.A. Has submitted that this has been vehemently denied by Mr. M.A. Khan and in fact, it is on the record that he was son of Computor Clerk working in the Bureau of Statistics. Learned D.A. Has taken exception to such like wild allegations of malice by a subordinate against his senior just only to escape the consequence of an observation made by his immediate officer and nothing else. It has been further argued that there is nothing on the record to show that the person who gave this entry to the appellant was in no way connected with Mr. M.A. Khan through friendship or any other intimacy of the past.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions so made by the parties before us and by looking into the record of this case we find that Mr. M.A. Khan was a person who recommended the appellant and at no stage he opposed his promotion. We have also satisfied ourselves that Amjad Idrees was in no way connected with Mr. M.A. Khan or any attempt was made by Mr. M.A. Khan to save him from the appellant when he tried to probe into the complaints so made against the said official. We have further perused a number of documents by the respondents placed on the record, as Annexures A, B, C, D and E to show that the appellant was proceeded against for misconduct on 18-2-1981 when Mr. M.A. Khan, Director Agricultural Crops Reporting Service Punjab was appointed A.O. Under Rule 2(1)(c) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. It has also been submitted that the appellant is avoiding the said enquiry by proceeding on medical leave. These Annexures also reveal that the incident of loss of cash book did took place and on the report of the appellant, Muhammad Aslam Cashier was reverted. Annexure 'A' has been filed to show that the name of Shahid Makhdoom (appellant) was duly recommended when the case for filling up of N.P.S.-17 post was prepared. This Annexure was issued by the Directorate of Agriculture signed by Mr. M.A. Khan as Director. This document makes it crystal clear that the name of the appellant was never dropped nor the name of Zafar Ali was added. In view of this we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has failed to prove any malice with Mr. M.A. Khan or any other act of the said officer which should persuade us to believe that he was after the blood of the appellant. Respondent Department has also placed on record confidential document, dated 15-3-1980 to show that the appellant, work was considered below average and it was observed that he had failed to improve his work in the field. There is also an observation of his immediate boss that since he took over as Statistical Officer at Kasur, the work has deteriorated. In the end of this letter a request for his transfer from Kasur was made to save the situation. Another letter, dated 10-2-1980 by the Reporting Officer is on the record that when the field work was checked by the said officer, he found that the appellant was lethargic and his work was not upto the mark. In this letter the appellant was admonished to keep the work upto date and with the hope that he will make some improvement. There is also another confidential letter, dated 3-4-1980 by the Reporting Officer in which he has also observed that his work was piled up and the appellant was not taking any personal interest in clearing the same. In another confidential letter, dated 11-3-1980, it was found that the appellant was found absent many a times when Mr. M.A. Khan visited the office and also there was misuse of Government vehicle on his part. These documents show that the assessment of the work made by the Reporting Officer was not without any basis or that the assessment so made by him was unwarranted and was made at his whim and fancy alone.
6. In view of the documentary evidence against the off and complete lack of material with regard to the allegation of malice against his A superiors, we are of the considered opinion that the assessm ent made by the Reporting Officer was for justified reasons and the same cannot be interfered with.
7. The result is we do not find any merits in this appeal and proceed to dismiss the same. There will be no order as to costs.