ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).--Ch. Abdul Sattar, Farm Superintendent, Ehsanpur has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director of Agriculture (Extension), Cotton Zone, Punjab, Multan and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks for the year 1981 be expunged. He has also prayed that the impugned orders dated 10-2-1983 (Annexure 'A') and 1-8- 1985 (Annexure 'C') be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks for the period from 1-1-1981 to 31-12-1981 vide Director of Agriculture (Extension) Cotton Zone, Multan letter dated 10-2-1983:- "Remarks of the 1st Countersigning Officer.
Living beyond means, cases of leakage of pesticides of his stores worth lacs of Rupees needs thorough investigation by Anti-Corruption Department. More interested in private business."
The appellant made a representation for expunction of adverse remarks which was rejected by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab Agriculture Department vide order dated 1-8-1985. Hence this appeal It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks are consisting of the following three parts:-
(i) Living beyond means.
(ii) Cases of leakage of pesticides of his stores worth lacs of Rupees needs thorough investigation by Anti-Corruption Department; (i.e) More interested in private business.
It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that as far as adverse remark regarding living beyond his means is concerned, the appellant had denied the allegation while submitting his explanation to the Authority--Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department but proper mind was not applied by the said authority while considering his case for expunction of adverse remarks. As far as cases of leakage of pesticides are concerned, he has relied on the enquiry report dated 12-8-1984 of the Enquiry Officer at Annexure 'D' and has submitted that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant from this charge. As far as adverse remark more interested in private business' is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant had given a full justification for the same while representing to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department but proper mind has also not been applied by the said Authority. It has also been by the learned counsel for the appellant that a reference is made to the parawise comments submitted by the respondents, it is clear from the same that the justification given by the 1st Countersigning Officer, who had recorded these adverse remarks has not justified the same. In view of this, the adverse remarks cannot be sustained and are liable to be expunged.
5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and also justification submitted by the 1st Countersigning Officer, which has been reproduced in the parawise comments submitted by the Secretary Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department. The learned District Attorney has submitted that keeping in view the justification so given by the respondents, the adverse remarks are liable to be sustained as these are based on facts.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have gone through the record of this case as well. The appellant gave the following justification for expunction of these adverse remarks while submitting his representation (Copy at Annexure B) through proper channel to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department:- "Living beyond means.
It is not true, I always do within the means. I may mention here that my two brothers are doing business in England. They often pay visits to Pakistan to see the relatives and present gifts to me and my children in the form of clothes wearing etc. They also provide monitary aid to me. Worthy countersigning officer perhaps has assessed this due to my foreign clothes/wearing which are always gifted to me by my brothers. Hence the assessment of the remarks is based on, misunderstanding, as stated above.
'More interested in private business.'
It is not admitted nor it is true. I have never engaged myself in private business, I always worked for the interest of the Department and performed my duties wholeheartedly and with zeal. My services and good work have been acknowledged in the form of honoraria worth Rs.350 which was granted to me during the financial year 1980-81 vide Director of Agriculture (Ext.) Cotton Zone Punjab Multan No. 12294-95/13-49/Estt, dated 31-5-1981, page 2 Tehsil Lodhran at Sr. No. 1".
As far as Part (11) of the adverse remarks i.e. 'leakage of pesticides' is concerned, the finding of Ch. Basharat Ahmad, Deputy Director of Agriculture (Inquiry Officer), Sahiwal dated 12-8-1984 is reproduced below: --(Annexure D).
"The reply to Charge-Sheet offered by the accused Agricultural Officer is based on facts. He may not be Held responsible for this leakage and the leakage so caused be recommended to be written of."
It has also been observed that the remarks i.e. 'cases of leakage of pesticides of his stores worth lacs of Rupees needs thorough investigation by Anti-Corruption Department' is also a vague remark and it was not proper for the 1st Countersigning Officer to make such remark in the A.C.R. Of the appellant keeping in view the instructions so issued by the Services General Administration and Information Department, Government of the Punjab with regard to writing of the A.C. Rs. As contained in the Booklet on the subject.
7. We have also gone through the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and the following justification has been offered by the respondents to justify these adverse remarks:- "(i) The appellant has himself admitted that he is living beyond means. He has however mentioned other sources of income which were not in the notice of 1st Countersigning Officer. It is for the appellant to prove whether the other sources of income are genuine.
(ii) On receipt of the report about leakage of pesticides from the Verification Committee, the 1st Countersigning Officer made certain querries to the appellant. But no reply was received by the Countersigning Officer during his tenure. Therefore, the remarks that the leakage of pesticides be got verified through a 3rd agency i.e. Anti-Corruption Establishment."
(i.e) There were verbal complaints that the appellant is engaged in selling of sprayers and pesticides of a private firm. For obvious reasons the private firms do not keep record of business conducted through Government officials. The remarks were given on the basis of general reputation of the appellant."
We have perused the justification given by the appellants/appellant's counsel and also the justification given by the respondents, we find that the justification given by the respondents do not justify the adverse remarks so recorded by the 1st Countersigning Officer.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the adverse remarks of the appellant from his A . C . R . For the year 1981 are expunged and the impugned orders are set aside.
M. Y.H./138/Sr.P.
Adverse remarks expunged.