Karamat Ullah, Naib Tehsildar, USHR, Pakpattan, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the, appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks be expunged from the appellant's A.C.R. For the year 1982 and the final order dated 19-5-1984 also be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that vide letter dated 31-8-1983 (Annexure 'A') the following adverse remarks were conveyed to the appellant by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan for the period from 13-4-1982 to 31-12-1982 :- "Integrity. Doubtful.
Suitability for promotion. Unfit.
General remarks. Disposal of work is quite slow.
The appellant made a representation against these remarks to the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan which was rejected vide his order dated 19-5-1984. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i.e. Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G.
Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondent.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that during the posting of the appellant at Mian Channu his work and conduct always remained good and the Assistant Commissioner expressed his satisfaction. In the field of recovery and land revenue, .The appellant always topped the list of revenue officers. As regards integrity there was no complaint against the appellant and he was never confronted with any complaint by his superiors. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan had also appreciated his work during the course of his Circle Inspections under his charge. Thus, the adverse remarks given by the Reporting Officer are not justified and be expunged.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the comments of the Reporting Officer Mr. Muhammad Sami Saeed, the Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal on the representation of the appellant and has submitted that the Reporting Officer has fully justified the remarks so given to the appellant and be sustained keeping in view his justification.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. The Reporting Officer while commenting on the representation of the appellant vide his letter No 290/AC dated 26-4-1984 has submitted that the Integrity of the Officer was noted doubtful in view of his reputation. It appears that the Reporting officer was led by the complaint made against the appellant by Mr. Abdul Latif, Chairman, Union Committee, Mian Channu and the adverse remarks are as a result of this complaint regarding the 'Integrity of the appellant.' The perusal of the personal file of the appellant makes it clear that the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, deputed Assistant to the Commissioner (General), Multan Division to enquire into this complaint. He asked Mr. Abdul Latif, Chairman, Union Committee, Mian Channu to appear before him on 19-6-1982 vide his letter dated 15-6-1982. Ultimately the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan reported the matter to the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore regarding this complaint, which is reproduced as follows:- "In this case the complainant Abdul Latif, Chairman, Union Committee, Mian Channu was summoned and his statement was recorded by the Assistant to Commissioner (General), Multan Division. A copy of his statement is sent herewith. Since he denied having sent any complaint against Mr. Karamat Ullah, Ex-Naib Tehsildar, Mian Channu etc., the papers have been filed.
Moreover this Naib Tehsildar has since been reverted to the post of Kanungo."
The above letter of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan makes it clear that the complaint against the appellant could not ultimately be substantiated. Except this complaint, there is nothing on record to show that the integrity of the appellant was doubted during the period 13-4-1982 to 31- 12-1982 (the period of this A.C.R). The Reporting Officer has also not given any specific instance to show that the integrity of the appellant was doubtful or he had doubtful reputation.
8. As far as the adverse remark against the suitability for promotion "Un-fit" is concerned, the Reporting Officer has not at all touched this point while commenting upon the representation of the appellant in his letter referred to above and thus, this adverse remarks has not been substantiated by the Reporting Officer.
9. As far as the General Remarks "Disposal of work is quite slow" is concerned, I have gone through the comments offered by the Reporting Officer through his letter referred to above and have also perused the other record and find that this adverse remark given against the appellant is correct and is fully justified.
10. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is partially accepted and the adverse remarks against the columns of integrity and suitability for promotion are expunged.
However, the adverse remark against column General remarks--" disposal of work is quite slow" shall remain as it is. The impugned orders are modified to the above extent.
There will be no order as to costs.
Judgment be communicated to the parties.
M.Y.H./104-Sr.P