' MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).-Aftab Ahmad Sheikh, Director, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing Physical and Environmental Planning Department, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleadcd the Government of the Punjab through the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Housing Physical and Environmental Planning Department, Lahore, as respondents.
' Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks relating to the period from 12-5-1986 to 31-12-1986, communicated to him be expunged and order dated 27-6-1988, passed on appellant's representation, by respondent No, 1 be set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was conveyed adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R.
For the period from 12-5-1986 to 31-12-1986, which are reproduced below:-- "An experienced hard working officer who is quite capable of delivering the goods, though at times is liable to misunderstand the situation through ignorance and hasty conclusions."
' The appellant made a representation before respondent No, 1 against the said adverse remarks on 4-2-1986, which was rejected and conveyed to him through letter dated 27-6-1988. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties at length with the assistance of the Departmental representative.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant did not hold charge of the project from 12-5-1986 to 31-12-1986, as the appellant was not concerned at all with the work relating to the project mentioned above, therefore, the impugned remarks are uncalled for because the appellant was not entrusted with this assignment. Further stated that the remarks are in violation of the instructions, vague and ambiguous. On the other hand learned District Attorney has fully supported the case of the respondents and contended that the appellant remained in charge of the project from 1-6-1986 to 3-6-1986 during the period from 12-5-1986 to 31-12-1986. A certificate to this effect on behalf of respondent No, 2 has also been placed on the file of this appeal.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have also perused the record of the case carefully. We find that the appellant was incharge of the project for only 3 days viz. From 31-5-1986 to 2-6-1986 and handed over the charge on 3-6-1986. The appellant remained on medical leave w,e,f, 14-9-1986 to 31-12-1986 and did not hold the charge of the assignment w,e,f, 3-6-1986, till the end of the year under report, and took the charge of the assignment in the month of January, 1987, and held the same till the successful completion of the scheme i,e, October, 1987. We find that the appellant was given a good report for the year ending 31-12-1987. Thus, we hold that the remarks for the period from 12-5-1986 to 31-12-1986 are the outcome of some misunderstanding and arc not justified by the Reporting Officer by quoting concrete examples. The respondents have also failed to justify these remarks in their parawise comments. These remarks are vague in nature and cannot be allowed to stand on the A.C.R. Of the appellant. On careful perusal of the facts of the appeal and keeping in view the above discussion, we hold that the remarks conveyed to the appellant are unjustified and arc liable to be expunged.
6. In view of the above analysis of the case, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. Of the appellant for the period from 12- 5-1986 to 31-12-1986, be expunged and struck from the A.C.R. Of the appellant. There is no order as to costs.