1. JUDGMENTMOHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM P1RZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Jamshed Iqbal, Unit Supervisor has filed this appeal under section-4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act-1974 in which he has impleaded Agricultural Engineer, D.G.Khan, Director of Agricultural Engineering, Multan and Faqir Muhammad, Assistant Agricultural Engineer, D.G.Khan now Agricultural Engineer, Bahawalpur as respondents.
2. Through this appeal appellant has prayed that adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 1-1-1984 to 8-5-1984 conveyed to him be expunged and order dated 11-10-1987 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting his representation set aside.2. Brief facts of this case preferrably are that the appellant was communicated the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 1-1- 1984 to 8-5-1984 which arc reproduced below: -"8) Observation on11) 12) #tbs13)
3. (Unsatisfactory)14) (Loose)15) (Lacks initiative & drive) (lndisciplined).16) (doubtful)17) (There were conxplaints) (Poor)18) #the19) Application of knowledgeiii) Control over subordinatesiv) Initiative and drivev) Amenability to disciplinevi) Integrity.Vii) Relations with publicviii) Punctuality in submission of reports and disposal of work.Ix) Touring to check field work. (Not systematic).20)
4. Particulars of reprimand or warning (He was warned due to incomplete record)(He is careless in performing legitimate duties. He is master of intrigues and underground activities against his officers and subordinates to achieve his vested interest and ill- motives. He will not spare his officers from black-mailing if they question him about his duties. Sometimes he threatens his immediate officers and tries to maintain relations one step higher.)3. 4. #tbs5. If any administered.
5. 13) General Remarks:6. #the7. Appellant made representation before respondent No.2 which was rejected vide order dated 11-10-1987. Hence this appeal.8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with the assistance of representatives of the department with care.9. The main contention of the learned counsel, for the appellant is that the adverse report conveyed to the appellant is without justification and is mala fide. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has been strongly opposed by the learned D.A. Who stated that impugned orders passed by respondents in the light of comments/report furnished by the respondents may be allowed to be up-held.10. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that in the present case relevant instructioons regarding the writing of ACRs have been violated as the adverse report was communicated to the appellant as late as on 8-6-1987 which was not quite unusual but unfair. I also find from the contents of the letter dated 5-3-1984 (Anncxure-F) addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1 the personal annoyance and malice of the reporting officer against the appellant. The contents of this letter are reproduced below: -"From some times ago misunderstanding prevailed between me and Unit Supervisor and in your presence this has been sorted out and misunderstanding has been cleared. Keeping in view the discussion openly held in your office, I request that all the cases initiated against him may kindly be treated as dropped".11.
6. The service record of the appellant has been found to be satisfactory and unblemished. There is nothing on the record indicating that any counselling or warning was ever conveyed to the appellant by the reporting officer during the period under adverse report. The 1st and second countersigning officers have declared him as an average worker. Appellant's entire service being good it is inconceivable situation that the appellant had turned into inefficient or corrupt for a period of for months and then he again regained his efficiency and honestyquite abruptly. Reliance has been rightly placed on a decided case reported as 1983 PLC-(CS)-303 wherein following observation was made:-"Inefficiency and corruption are tracts of character which linger on with a person and cannot be developed suddenly then can leave him abruptly "The above dictum is fully applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. So there is no reason to uphold the remarks which arc unjustified and liable to be expunged.Consequently, I accept this appeal and set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks recorded in the appellant's ACR for the period from 1-1-1984 to 8-5-1984 be expunged. There is no order as to costs.