1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Saeed Afzal, Excise and Taxation Inspector, Bahawalnagar, has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 5‑1‑1985, passed by Respondent No.l, whereby the representation made by the appellant for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his A. C. R. for the period from 1‑7‑1981 to 30‑6‑1982, has been rejected. He has impleaded the Director General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore, Director, Excise and Taxation Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and Excise and Taxation Officer, Bahawalnagar, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and impugned adverse remarks be expunged from the A.C.R. of the appellant for the period from 1‑7‑1981 to 30‑6‑1982. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was informed on 18‑12‑1982, through a confidential letter that he has been adversely assessed as under for the period 1‑7‑1981 to 30‑6‑1982:‑ "(1) He was entrusted with Excise work during the first quarter of 1981‑82, to which he detected no case and then this duty was taken by him. (2) Still have childish habits and needs to be transferred from home district as he is in habit of getting his transfer cancelled using influence. (3) Is still home‑sick and wants posting of his choice." He filed representation against the same and was informed vide letter dated 5‑1‑1985, that his representation has been considered and rejected. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the year 1980‑81, he had received good reports from Sh. Muhammad Afzal, Reporting Officer whereas by giving the present adverse report learned Reporting Officer has not indicated any change in the circumstances, which necessitated his adverse assessment. He has mentioned that the appellant was awarded cash reward of Rs.1,500 for best performance during the period of the said Reporting Officer Sh. Muhammad Afzal. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently denied that there was nothing on record to show that the appellant resulted any influence of getting his transfer cancelled, therefore, the assertion in this regard was fully whimsical. However, it has been further argued that during the period under assessment the appellant did not do any work but in fact he was doing Excise Duty, therefore, to say that he did not locate any case would be unfair. 5. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the comments so submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the assessment made by the Reporting Officer was justified as well as correct. 5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced' by the parties and have perused the comments of the Reporting Officer which he submitted at the time of representation made by the appellant to the next higher authority, and find that the appellant had requested the Director to relieve him of the Excise work and to allocate the gain tax and provincial tax work, which was acceded to, therefore, to say that he failed to detect any case during the quarter of 1981‑82, would be unjustified. There is nothing on record to contradict the stand of the appellant, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this assessment of the Reporting Officer would be unjustified. With regard to the second limb of the adverse assessment regarding appellant's childish habit of using his transfers cancelled, we have gone through the entire record as well as justifica tion of the Reporting Officer and find that this assessment is also unjustified, as there is nothing on record to show that the appellant did exercise and influence in this manner. What we find is that the transfer was held in abeyance by the Director himself and if the said Director was of the opinion that the appellant was responsible to put pressure on him in this matter, the right course for him to refuse to accept the pressure and initiate proceedings against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The record of this case does not show any action of this kind, therefore, it would be not possible for us to accept this assessment which has not been justified in any manner whatsoever. With regard to the 3rd limb of the assessment that the appellant was home‑sick and wanted station of his choice, we have perused the record and find that the appellant has been posted in the stations which are far from Home District and this assessment is also would be unjustified. 6. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the remarks given to the appellant in the ACR for the period 1‑7‑1981 to 30‑6‑1982 be expunged. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. H./100/Sr.P Appeal accepted.