MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Chaudhry Muhammad Shaft. Controller of Weights and Measures, Government of the Punjab has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 in which he has impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, S GA & I Department and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department as respondents. The appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks relating to the period from 1.1.1987 to 31.12.1987 communicated to him be expunged and order dated 23.11.1988 passed on the representation of the appellant by the respondent No.1, be set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R, for the period 1.1.1987 to 31.12.1987 which are reproduced below: - a) "Unlikely to progress further". b) "There were complaints against his integrity, he was cautioned and ultimately transferred to HQ.
Should be kept away from the field."
The appellant made a representation before the Respondent No.1, against the said remarks on 6.4.1988 which was rejected and conveyed to him through letter dated 3.12.1988. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard to parties at length with the assistance of the departmental representatives.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the entire service career of 35 years appellant's record is perfectly neat and clean except the impugned adverse remarks.
Further argued that the remarks are totally unjustified and there is no material on the record to support the said remarks. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has seriously supported the case of the respondents and contended that the remarks be allowed to stand in the light of the comments/report furnished on behalf of the respondents.
5. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the . Parties and have also perused the record of the case carefully. I find that the appellant has unblemished career as a Government servant spreading over 35 years. As for the remarks unlikely to progress further it is noteworthy to mention that these are not consistent and Respondent No.2 even did not disagree with the assessm ent of the Reporting Officer regarding quality and out put of work of the appellant.
In fact he agreed with what was recorded by the Initiating Authority regarding appellant's work, conduct and integrity. Even Minister for Labour during his visit to the area of appellant's jurisdiction had appreciated the work and conduct of the appellant. I also find that the remarks in the pen picture are unjustified on account of the fact that from Gujranwala, the appellant was shifted as Controller, Weights and Measures Punjab which is a position of higher responsibility.
Countersigning Authority has also incorrectly recorded that the appellant was cautioned because if he had received complaints about the appellant's integrity the only proper course would have been to have an Enquiry into the matter to find out the truth and to provide an opportunity to the appellant to explain his position but this was never done as no complaint has been placed on record by the respondents to substantiate this plea. As for the impugned adverse remarks that the appellant was transferred to Headquarter, it is added that ten Joint Directors were transferred and appellant was one of them. On careful perusal of the facts of the appellant keeping in view of the above discussion I hold that respondents have failed to justify these remarks. In their parawise comments/report and as such the remarks conveyed to the appellant are unjustified and are liable to be expunged.
6. In view of the above analysis of the case, I 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 1.1.1987 to 31.12.1987 be expunged and struck of from the A.C.R, of the appellant. There is no order as to costs.
Parties be informed.