S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Muhammad Munir Malik has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks for the period from 4-3-1981 to 20-12-1981, be directed to be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that vide Letter No.SO(C)1-178/77, dated 20-7-1982, the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks for the period from 4-3-1981 to 20-12-1981:- "Co-operation and tact.Below average Bahaviour with public.Is inclined to be arrogant.
PEN PICTURE General reputation in question. Bar Resolution passed. Under enquiry.
An officer of doubtful integrity and immature in his public contact."
He filed representation against the same to the next higher authority and was informed vide letter, dated 3-8-1983, that his representation was rejected by the competent authority and he was informed about the decision vide letter, dated 14-3-1983. It was further intimated to him that according to the instructions contained in S&GAD'8 Circular Letter No.SORIII(S&GAD)14-2/72, dated 9-6-1973, the officers adversely reported upon have only one right of making a representation and absolute finality attaches to the decision taken thereon whether in favour of the officer or against.
Therefore, he was told that his second representation could not be considered. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in fact the appellant has fallen victim to the malice of Messrs Abdul Haq, Muhammad Jamil Hashmi and Rao Abdul Rehman's, Advocates, whom he could not oblige. He also referred to the case of Muhammad Ishaq who was declared tout by the Bar Association Shujabad. According to the learned counsel he was stopped from entering the Court premises by Mr. Abdul Majid, Advocate whereupon the said Mohammad Ishaque allegedly took out a knife and tried to inflict injuries on the person of the Advocate. A case F.I.R. No. 63/79 under section 506, P.P.C. Was registered against him. According to the learned counsel for the appellant no witness turned up for more than two years, the appellant acquitted the accused for lack of evidence. This annoyed the Members of the Bar Association. The first enquiry was conducted by Mr.Zafar Mahmood, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Multan, who exonerated the appellant. It was pointed out that the second enquiry was conducted by Lt.- Col.Khalilur Rehman's, who was functioning as President, D.M.L.A., Inspection Team, Multan, who also found the integrity and reputation of the appellant beyond reproach. It was argued that the word "General reputation in question. Bar resolution passed. Under enquiry" was a mere narration of certain facts and could not be termed as a remark or opinion. But with regard to the second portion of the pen picture, "an officer of doubtful integrity". Immature in his public contact, was also a mere reproduction of the columnised remarks and the first portion of the pen picture. According to the learned counsel for the appellant all these remarks have their roots in the Bar resolution. It was forcefully argued that the resolution had itself been declared as false and baseless, the supra- structure also stood demolished, and the remarks lose their effectiveness of whatsoever. He has placed lot of reliance on the enquiry which he has appended with his appeal.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appeal is time-barred on the ground that the competent authority conveyed to the appellant that his representation regarding expunction of adverse remarks was rejected on 10-3-1983. As the appellant had full knowledge of the same he should have come before this Tribunal after 30 days of the said period. But as he has failed to do so, his appeal would be barred by 5 months and 8 days. It has been submitted by the learned Deputy District Attorney that the second representation was not permissible under Circular No.SORIII(S&GAD)14-2/72, dated 9-6-1973 wherein second representation did not lie,
7. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that it was incorrect that A.D.C.(G)
Multan exonerated the appellant from the charges contained in the enquiry but the enquiry conducted by him clearly revealed that the appellant had a doubtful integrity. He has also referred to the probe made by the Commissioner into the said matter and has submitted that the remarks were not the result of alleged propaganda and verification campaign of the Shujabad Bar but were based on a considered opinion of the Commissioner who had got it confirmed through an enquiry by the A.D.C.(G). In this manner, he has pleaded that the appeal be dismissed.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and first of all will deal with the issue of limitation raised by the Deputy District Attorney.
9. We are in agreement with the learned Deputy District Attorney that the appeal should have been filed after a period of one month and from the date on which the appellant had received information about rejection of his representation. We have no hesitation to hold that the appellant had no right to file second representation as the same was not permissible videcircular a mention of which has been made in the earlier part of our judgment. In this way the appeal of the appellant is barred by 5 months and 8 days. As no cogent reason has been advanced for condonation of delay we hardly find any reason to condone the said delay.
10. With regard to the merits of the case, we find that the claim of the appellant is correct to the extent that he was exonerated from the charges levelled against him by the Enquiry Officer but the same Enquiry Officer carne to the conclusion that there was lot of hanky phanky with regard to the integrity of the appellant. He has particularly pointed out an incident which the appellant himself had brought to light that somebody came to his Chamber and pursuaded him to accept illegal gratification. According to the Enquiry Officer if the appellant was a man of integrity he should not have hesitated to bring the culprit to book and reported the matter immediately to the police.
According to the Enquiry Officer this conduct of the appellant by concealing this matter all the times did reflect on his integrity.
11. Learned Commissioner while concluding has observed that the appellant himself absented from the proceedings on the basis of a medical certificate for quite sometime and most probably utilized this period for working upon the witnesses who had appeared against him. According to the learned Commissioner this fact detracts from the credibility of the evidence and also shows that the conduct of all the concerned parties had not been clean. He has further observed that he was not convinced of the total innocence of the appellant as it appeared that he has been dealing with the clerks of the Advocates in matters of bail applications. He has also made a reference to the approach of Mr. Balouch, Advocate, apparently with an offer of bribe and the appellant did not bring it to the notice of any one. A reference has been made by the District and Sessions Judge in which it has been reported that the appellant entertained a remand application from police in a case under Hudood Ordinance and instead of taking a decision about physical remand discharged the accused while the appellant was not competent to deal with the case and in any case that was not the stage at which the accused could be discharged even by a competent Court. All these observations after thorough probe into the matter made by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, fully justified the assumption of the Reporting Officer in the A.C.R. Under appeal.
12. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
There will be not order as to costs.
A. E.