1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHARY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The facts relevant for the decision of the appeal are that by letter dated 30‑4‑1984, the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 1‑1‑1983 to 31‑10‑1983:‑‑ "PART‑III 4 ‑ Acceptance of responsibility: Poor 11‑ Perseverance and devotion to duty: Poor PART‑IV 6‑ Work‑Output (Always up-to-date: mulates no arrears.) Poor PART‑V (a) Pen Picture: (i) Needs improvement in his attitude towards work. (ii) He had been given two assignments to write but could not complete even within a year in spite of repeated reminders and a warning. Concealing this delay and avoiding responsibility he tried to show that on transfer, he had submitted those assignments to me. (iii) Created problems and hindrances in the smooth running of administration. , (iv) Not suitable for teaching assignments. (b) Counselling: Yes, but no effect (c) Re‑assessment of performance: Exhibited a routine type of work on repeated reminders and pressure. He has been charge‑sheeted for negligence of duty and remaining on self‑granted leave. All, Needs training in Islamic values for knowing the importance attached to duty. The appellant submitted representation dated 5‑6‑1984, which was considered and rejected by respondent on 1‑7‑1985. The appellant aggrieved by the said order has filed the instant appeal in this Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The appeal was filed on 28‑7‑1985 and admitted to regular hearing on 17‑8‑1985. The respondent has contested the same, filed parawise comments and prayed its dismissal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Gill, Deputy District Attorney on behalf of respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments, has raised the following points:‑‑ (1) Firstly, that the appellant from 1‑1‑1983 to 31‑10‑1983 only remained in the Institution for 5 months and 16 days and the remaining period he was either on training or in medical leave; (2) Secondly, that the report is mala fide and recorded in a revengeful spirit as the Reporting Officer was annoyed with the appellant as he proceeded on medical leave against his wishes. Moreover, the appellant was allotted Quarter No. 8‑A. The Quarter was given by the Reporting Officer to one of his friends and when the appellant pressed for possession of the quarter, he got offended with him; and (3) Thirdly, the report is against facts because the appellant was proceeded for inefficiency on the same allegations which formed integral part of the adverse remarks and he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer of all the charges of inefficiency. It is, therefore, argued that there is no justification to retain the impugned adverse remarks.

4. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has submitted that the appellant had served for a period more than 3 months, therefore, the report was rightly and legally recorded by the Reporting Officer. It is maintained that the appellant failed to accomplish the assignment given to him. The allegations of mala fides are vehemently denied. It is, however, admitted that the Quarter 8/A was allotted to the appellant but maintained that there was no dispute over delivery of possession. It is maintained that the remarks are correct and fully justified.

5. Now we proceed to consider the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the record and counter‑arguments of the Deputy District Attorney.

6. The first argument that the appellant remained at the Institution only for a period of 5 months and 16 days. The contention is not disputed. However, it is added that this period was sufficient to complete the assignment given to the appellant. On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant argues that the same remarks were subject‑matter of charge‑sheet Annexure `F and statement of allegations Annexure `C'. We have gone through the same and find that the remarks were directly subject‑matter of that inquiry. Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan was appointed as Authorised Officer, who after going through the inquiry report A concluded that the allegations have not been proved. However, the appellant should be warned to be careful in future. Since the matter has been concluded in the inquiry, therefore, the same holds good. The basis have disappeared. In this view of the matter the remarks recorded in Part III, Parts IV and V are without justification. 6‑A. Now we deal with the ground of mala fides. It is evident from record that the adverse remarks were recorded in revengeful spirit and in order to vent the spleen. It is clear that the Reporting Officer was annoyed with the appellant for his act of proceeding on medical leave. His impression was that the appellant has gone on leave in order to avoid the completion of assignment. Since the leave was duly sanctioned, therefore, the Reporting Officer should not have lost his temper. Moreover, the appellant has been exonerated in the inquiry. We have gone through the charge‑sheet and statement of allegations and find that the whole proceedings were the result of annoyance on the part of the Reporting Officer.

7. The moment the appellant was exonerated of the first four charges, the basis of the remarks disappeared. The remarks are liable to be expugned on this short ground alone.

8. The result is we find that the remarks are biased and without any basis, therefore, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 1‑7‑1985 rejecting the representation of the appellant and expunge the remarks. There is no order as to costs. AA./260/Sr. P Appeal accepted