S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Ch. Karamat Ullah, Naib-Tehsildar, Ushr, Pakpattan Sharif District Sahiwal, has filed this appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran, Deputy Commissioner, Multan, and Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks may be expunged from his ACR for the period from 1-4-1983 to 30-9-1983, and orders dated 25-4-1984 and 22-5-1985/25-5-1985, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was conveyed following adverse entry by letter dated 25-4-1984 :- "Integrity:Below Average".
The appellant submitted representation against the said adverse entry on 27-5-1984, but the same was rejected by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, by his letter dated 22-5-1985. 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 Departments and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's work was laudible as he reduced the outstanding balance of Rs.12,22,941/- to Rs.91,686/-. He further submitted that during four months stay of the appellant, there was no complaint of whatsoever against him and the observation of the Reporting Officer was not accompanied with any specific instance. It was vehemently argued that according to Government instructions remarks on integrity should be given after very careful assessm ent, but in this case the remarks have been given by the Reporting Officer without any factual basis and due consideration to the performance of the appellant.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has supported the stand of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, and has also brought to our notice the justification of the Reporting Officer which he has placed on record as R/1. Learned District Attorney has submitted that the learned Assistant Commissioner (Reporting Officer) has given full justification for his observation about integrity of the appellant, as he has quoted specific instances of the complaints so made against him and has also relied on the another case in which the Deputy Commissioner approved the mutation a/s 19 of Colonization of Govt. Lands Act, 1912, but the appellant rejected without any justification. He has prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and would only refer to the justification given by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran who has categorically stated that it was reported to him that the appellant demanded Rs.12,000/--from one Faqir Muhammad as illegal gratification to sanction mutation of transfer under section 19 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. According to the Reporting Officer, the then Tehsildar Lodhran Mr. Arshad Zahid was also present in his office when the complainant made the complaint. According to the Reporting Officer, the appellant voluntarily turned up in his office to clarify his position. Later on it was found that he rejected the mutation of transfer (as he was not handed over the money) which was duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the plea of the appellant that it was illegal transaction and was not sustainable. He has elaborated the entire case in his report and we are fully satisfied with his assessment.
8. With regard to the plea of the appellant that he has reduced the outstanding dues from Rs.12,22,941/- to Rs.91,686/- during his tenure and according to the Reporting Officer also speak his inefficiency because he has been misquoting the figures. According to him the balance of recoverable in Lodhran and Kehror Pacca Branch on 31-8-1983 was Rs.29,72,000/- and Rs.7,18,000/- respectively whereas the figure of recoverable balance submitted by him to Headquarters was shown as Rs.91,686. He has mentioned another factor that the Regional Manager, Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan, Multan also complained about the poor performance of the appellant. We find that the learned AC has been successful in justifying his observation, therefore, we find no force in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Judgment be communicated to the parties.
M.Y.H./107/Sr.P