1984 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑

Javed Shaheen has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and. Social Welfare Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the remarks of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, so conveyed vide D. O. letter No. LCS (CONF) (47)/81, dated 6th October, 1981, be expunged from his A.C.R., as the same were both unjustified and unwarranted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Taxation Officer, Zila Council Lahore, during 1980. The Chairman, Zila Council, Lahore, recorded the A C R of the appellant for the period from 3rd February, 1980 to 31st December, 1980 as under:‑ "Hard working and honest officer, who performs official duties efficiently." However the Commissioner, Lahore Division, while countersigning the A. C. R. found that it was very difficult to agree with the Chairman who has chosen to wax eloquent in praise of a very disreputable officer." The appellant made a representation against the said remarks of the countersigning authority, but the same was rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney representing the respondent assisted by the Re presentative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant throughout his service and even after the said adverse observation of the Commissioner had received favourable observation with regard to his work and his integrity was never questioned. It has been argued that the learned Commissioner who had only 25 days to supervise the work of the person like appellant, who is Grade‑17 officer, cannot formulate an opinion adverse against him during such a short period. According to the learned counsel, it would be hardly possible to believe that the learned Commissioner would remember even the name of the appellant who was one of the multitude of his subordinates in the Division, unless and until the learned Commissioner came in touch with the appellant, due to some singular happenings or personal experience. It has been argued that it is only why in the instructions laid down for recording A. C. Rs., a mandatory provision has been inserted that no officer should report about the work and conduct of the subordinate unless and until he has worked for more than three months under his supervision. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied on 1983 P L C (C. S.) 303, 1983 P L C (C. S.) 196 and 1982 P L C (C. S.) 92.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments so made by the respondent and has also referred to the com ments of the learned Commissioner where he has justified his observation to the Additional Chief Secretary, at the time when the case of the appellant was pending before him. According to the learned District Attorney learned Commissioner has observed that although the appellant has worked under him for 25 days but he had gathered from rembling of his reputation from various quarters indicating that he was a dishonest person. According to the learned District Attorney while accepting that a brother‑in‑law of the Commissioner was working at that time with the appellant, but he has denied that he had any influence over him to make this observation. Learned District Attorney has submitted that the assumption of the Commissioner was independent and it was within his rights to make observation of his assessment however low he may be in status.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties anc first of all we will advert to the A. C. Rs. of the appellant to see how he has been assessed during his entire career by the Reporting Officers at the relevant time. The fact of the matter is that the appellant has got no adverse entry with regard to his integrity or his reputation of being corrupt and has always been found an honest person. It is also a fact that the appellant was once removed from service as a result of inquiry and was ultimately re‑instated in service under the orders of this Tribunal which itself inflicted a minor penalty of withholding of two increments alongwith censure, on account of his negligence. We have gone through the entire judgment of this Tribunal to find whether there was any observation against him that he was punished by this Tribunal for the said lapse. We have satisfied ourselves that we imposed a minor penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect alongwith censure as we found him a negligent but not dishonest person. With this entire record of service which does not show that the appellant was a dishonest person before and after the observation of the learned Commissioner, we are under obligation to determine whether the learned Commissioner has justified himself to make this strong observation within a period of 25 days or not.

8. The law laid down on this point by us from time to time, is very clear and we have observed in the above‑cited judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant that inefficiency and corruption are the traits of character which linger on with a person and cannot develop suddenly to make a person corrupt. We also held in 1983 P L C (C. S.) 196, that the officer giving adverse entry should be able to justify his opinion by relating an instance of omission on behalf of such persons particularly when the appellant has been reported well by his immediate superior and it was only the countersigning authority (who belongs to the upper hierarchy) decided to disagree with the opinion of his Immediate superior. Now in the present case, what we find is, that Chairman, Zila Council, Lahore has considered the appellant as a hardworking and honest officer, who was found performing his duties efficiently. Now under these circumstances, it was all the more imperative for the learned Commissioner to give hi justification for disagreeing with a man who has watched the conduct and reputation of the appellant for about 9 months, whereas the said countersigning authority was holding the office for only 25 days, and later on stood transferred. We have given our careful consideration to this circumstance and find that unless and until there was a compute system available in the office of the Commissioner wherein the entire work and record of the servants was given in said computer, it would not be possible for any human being to make assessment of said work in such a short period. As we have held in the earlier part of our judgment while referring to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that unless the learned Commissioner was in a position to say that by occurrence of events, unusual in nature, the Commissioner had the occasion to look into the work of the appellant, at his level it would not be possible to accept that he formulated his opinion and assessed his reputation within such a short period. We are fully pursuaded by the said arguments keeping in view the instructions of the Government that even the immediate superior, should not make the assessment of a subordinate whose work was less than the period of three months. The philosophy of these instructions is very clear and the makers of these mandatory instructions in their wisdom, found it imperative to mention the same as it was beyond human nature and human capacity to make assessment of the overall reputation or efficiency of a subordinate within a period less than three months. We have ourselves carefully read the comments of the learned Commissioner and are constrained to hold that they do not see convincing and are only vague in nature. We have no dispute with him, when he asserts that overall assumption of a subordinate's work lies within the ambit of his senior officer also, but the very nature of the period under observation compels us to hold that the learned Commissioner while failing to give any instance; would not be in a position to hold the appellant as dishonest or a person of ill‑repute unless he was in a position to justify the same by quoting any particular event or example.

9. The result is, we accept the appeal, set aside the adverse entry so given by the countersigning authority in the A.C.R. for the period from 3rd February, 1980 to 31st December, 1980 of the appellant in the light of the above detailed analysis on facts and law of this case. We therefore, direct the respondent to expunge the said entry which has found its way in the A.C.R. of 1980 of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal accepted.