2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I)

Appellant is Excise and Taxation Officer in the Excise and Taxation Department.

2. As per facts leading to this appeal, the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the period from 1-7-2001 to 22-4-2002:-- "His performance towards recovery of property tax is not satisfactory." He filed departmental appeal, but the same was rejected through impugned orders dated 14-4-2005 hence present appeal in this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed his arguments at length. It is maintained on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was proceeded against on charges of deficient recovery of property tax. Appellant was consequently awarded penalty which was challenged by the appellant in this Tribunal through Service Appeal No.1120/03. The said appeal was accepted through orders dated 2-12-2003 of this Tribunal and the impugned orders of punishment were. set aside by this Tribunal. It is maintained that the adverse remarks contained in the ACR of the appellant are based on the same charges on which show-cause notice was served upon the appellant, disciplinary proceedings were conducted and finally the orders of punishment were set aside by this Tribunal. It is also pointed out that when the case had been dropped finally, these adverse remarks could not be allowed to stay. It is further stated that even, otherwise, the allegations as per adverse remarks were not well-founded because the appellant was not the only one responsible for meeting the recovery targets, many other including the supervisory officers were equally responsible. Moreover, the appellant was never given counselling in the past and the adverse remarks were recorded in the ACR of the appellant contrary to the Govt. instructions on the subject. It is also stated that the adverse remarks were given by the Countersigning Officer, who had no direct knowledge of the performance of the appellant and remarks recorded by him were devoid of fairness and objectivity.

3. Appeal has been opposed by the respondents. It is maintained on behalf of the respondents that the reference of the appellant to the out-come of service appeal filed in this Tribunal by the appellant had no nexus with the present case and that the representation of the appellant against the adverse remarks had been rejected by the competent authority on merits. It is also pointed out that the appellant had failed to achieve the recovery targets and that adverse remarks were recorded on objective appraisal of the work of the appellant by Countersigning Officer. It is next stated that the appellant had not been able to produce any documentary evidence to show that tax. demand of Zone-II were revised upwards by the competent authority and for this reason the appellant was not able to meet the inflated recovery targets.

4. I have considered contentions from both sides and also gone through the relevant record. I agree with the appellant that proceedings were earlier started against the appellant on the same grounds i.e. short-fall in the recovery of property tax. Appellant had filed Appeal No.1120/03. in the same connection in this Tribunal. This appeal was accepted by this Tribunal with the observations that as per record the recovery demand for the area where the appellant was posted was found unrealistic and obviously, the recovery demand could not be met/achieved. Moreover, the demand had been decreased in April and then in May, 2002. Appellant had brought the situation to the notice of the concerned authority well in time, but no action was taken. When the appeal filed by the appellant on the same subject had already been accepted by this Tribunal and the impugned orders of punishment awarded to the appellant regarding non-achievement of full recovery targets, had been set aside, adverse remarks recorded in the ACR to the same effect could not be allowed to stay. Moreover, the respondents have not been able to show from any record that the appellant had been given any counselling in writing relating to non-achievement of full recovery targets which were revised upward at later stage.

5. For the reasons given above appeal is accepted and impugned orders ,are set aside. The adverse remarks against which present appeal is filed, are therefore, ordered to be expunged. H.B.T./67/PST Appeal accepted.