1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑ Mr. Ghulam Farid Faridi, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Assistant Director, Social Welfare, 700‑A Satellite Town, Sargodha, Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and Director‑General, Social Welfare Punjab, 41‑Empress Road, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks recorded in the A. C. R. of the appellant in the year 1980 be ordered to be expunged and the order of the respondent No. 3 rejecting the representation of the appellant also be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Mr. Ghulam Farid Faridi, was .working as Social Welfare Officer in Sargodha District during the year 1980. He was conveyed adverse remarks, vide Government of the Punjab, Director‑General, Social Welfare Punjab, Lahore order, dated 3rd Marsh, 1981 as recorded in the A. C. R. for the year 1980, as follows :‑‑ "A sadistic personality who feels pride in humiliating his officers." He made a representation for expunction of these adverse remarks which was rejected, vide order No. 836, dated 15th January, 1983 by the Government of Punjab, Directorate of Social Welfare. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks given in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the year 1980 have no bearing on his official work or conduct. These remarks have been made by his immediate superior who was having malice towards the appellant. The Reporting Officer bad not acted fairly and justly towards the appellant when these remarks were entered by him in his A. C. R. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that these adverse remarks were not based on actual facts and these were due to the fabrication of the mind of respondent No. 1 whose own conduct towards his subordinates left much to be desired. He himself took pleasure in humiliating his subordinates and the said adverse remark was one such exercise. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 3 who has rejected his representation has also not applied his mind while reject ing his representation, as he has not passed a speaking order and no reason has been given in support of such rejection. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant argued that on the facts the remarks in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the year 1980 are baseless and arc without valid grounds and prayed for their expunction.

5. Rebutting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, the learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents, and has argued that these adverse remarks have been substantiated fully by the Reporting Officer when he was asked to call upon to do so on the representation of the appellant regarding expunction of these remarks. Thus, the remarks recorded in the A. C. R. of the appellant in the year 1980 have been correctly made and are in order.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties. As per practice of the Tribunal in dealing with and scrutiny of the cases of expunction of adverse remarks, we consult record very carefully, specially the comments of the Reporting Officers offered on the representations of the appellants regarding expunction of the adverse remarks. In the present case, we have carefully perused the comments, offered by Mr. Muhammad Islam, Reporting Officer on the representation of the appellant submitted to the Director‑General, Social Welfare Punjab, Lahore, in response to his letter No. S. W. (E) A.C.R/82‑2828 dated 25th February, 1982. We find that these comments do not lead us anywhere The Reporting Officer has tried to defend himself and justify his good work rather than proving and substantiating the adverse remarks so given by him to the appellant. Thus we are not satisfied with the justification given by the Reporting Officer on the representation of the appellant regarding expunction of adverse remarks. We bold that the Reporting Officer has failed to prove the adverse remarks so recorded by him. The Director‑General, respondent No. 3, also while considering the appeal of the appellant has not given any reason whatsoever while rejecting appeal of the appellant and this order No. 836, dated 15th January, 1983 of the respondent No. 3 is itself not a speaking order.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we set aside the impugned orders. The appeal of the appellant is accepted and the respondents are directed to expunge the adverse remarks from the A. C. R. of the appellant, for the year 1980. There will be no order as to costs. A.E Appeal accepted.