1984 PLP (C (PLC)

The Commissioner observed that the remarks underlined should be com municated to him. He filed a representation to the next higher authority, but his representation was rejected vide order, dated 26th January, 1983. Hence this appeal. 3‑A. 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 as well as comments of the Repor ting Officer.

4. The crux of the comments against the appellant is that he did not take much interest in his work and was feeling home sick. It has been further observed that his performance as a Magistrate was poor. A reference has also been made to his poor personality and his habits unlike a Magistrate, and miseries of his family circumstances. This feature of this case has been elaborated by the learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that as far as the disposal of the work was concerned, there is evidence on the record in the form of Annexures "D 1", "D 2" and "D 3", that keeping into view the working days spent by the appellant, the per formance was absolutely normal. This according to learned counsel would be documentary rebuttle of the allegation with regard to the poor perfor mance of the appellant. As far as the general assessment of work of personality of the appellant is concerned, learned counsel has requested up to go through the A. C. Rs. of the appellant which he received throughout his career and to see whether this sort of assessment by the learned Deputy Commissioner was in any way justified and based on at his own whim and fancy. It has been vehemently argued that the law laid down by this Tribunal as well as the superior Courts of this country, is absolutely clear on the point that assessment of a civil servant should be based on facts and the officer so making allegations against him, should be able to justify the same when called upon to do so. It has been further submitted that a single entry of this nature, without being supported by any previous trait of character in his earlier record of service, cannot be allowed to remain on his service record, to hir detirsment.

5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and first of all will advert to the assessment of work rela ting to the period under report. We have confronted the learned District Attorney as well as representative of the Department with Annexures "D/ 1," "D/2" and "D/3", and find that they could not contradict the documentary evidence on the record. These three documents clearly reveal that the appellant's work was fully upto the mark, keeping in view the working days which have devoted to the disposal of Magisterial work. Exh. D/1 reveals that he worked for 19 days in the month of August, and remained on two days leave and there was 7 holidays in the months. Three days were devoted to various duties so assigned to him. His disposal of cases worked out to 21, out of which six were conviction and fifteen acquittal. Similarly in the month of September, out of total 30 working days, he worked for 16 days on the judicial side. Availed six days leave and was on three days miscellaneous duty whereas five holidays. His disposal was 32 cases, which by all measures would be considered upto the mark. Similarly in October, 1981, he disposed of 42 cases during 22 days which he devoted to this working in his office. In view of this established fact on the record we have no hesitation to hold that the observation of the learned Deputy Commissioner regarding disposal of work as poor, was unjustified. With regard to his personality, we have seen the appellant in the Court and hardly find any justification for this assessment by the learned Deputy Commissioner. We are fortified in our this observation by the early record of his A. C. Rs. so recorded by his various superiors. The appellant Muhammad Naeem Siddiqui who is a Law Graduate, joined service on 14th May, 1974. The first Deputy Commissioner under whom he had the occasion to work was Mr. Naveed Asif, Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot and his first District and Sessions Judge Sialkot was Mr. Mahmood Khan (deceased). It will be useful to reproduce the observations of these two officers for the period 15th May, 1974 to 31st December, 1974:‑ "A hardworking and dependable officer. On his first appointment he held the charge of Assistant Commissioner, Narowal as an interim measure and gave a very good account of himself. His work during the flood season was specially commendable. He should make a good judicial/executive officer," Naveed Asif, Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. "Writes balanced and well‑reasoned arguments. Picking up the pro cedural and substantive, law appreciably." Mr. Mahmood Khan, District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot. Similarly in the year 1975, he was assessed by the said Deputy Commissioner and Mr. Ausaf Ali Khan, District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot who endorsed the observation of the immediate superior. In the year 1976, was assessed as young, energetic officer who worked quite bard to cope up the job of difficult nature. In the year 1977, he was highly spoken of by Mr. Talib Hussain, Deputy Secretary (Administration) Irrigation and Power Department and similarly Lt.‑Col. M. Asghar Khan, Deputy Commis sioner, Jhelum, found him an energetic, tactful and co‑operative Officer who was employed as R. M. II Chakwal, and the Commissioner found him an average officer. A look at his work in the year 1978, we find that Mr. Saleem Akhtar Rana, Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, considered him a very disciplined officer. Modest in outlook, Dutiful‑. Writes good judg ments‑. Knows Law, procedure and practice well‑. Has also been working on Martial Law Tribunal at Lahore for three days a week. In the year 1979, the same Deputy Commissioner repeated his earlier views and Mr. Abdul Majid Tiwana, Sessions Judge, Gujranwala fully agreed with the observation of the immediate officer. There is a lot of appreciation of the President, Special Military Court No. 13, who considered the officer upto the mark and found him a very hardworking, honest, efficient and disciplined officer. In the year 1980, Assistant Commissioner (S), Ch. Muhammad Hussain, spoke high about this officer and the Deputy Commissioner Lahore fully agreed with the assessment of the said Assistant Commissioner. In the year 1981, Mr. Pervaiz Sultan, Assistant Commissioner City, Lahore, found him average officer and the same Deputy Commissioner agreed with him. However, the learned Commissioner Mr. Umer Khan Afridi found this officer with unenviable reputation for dishonesty and corruption and transferred him out of Lahore for this reason. After this we find disputed entry of 1981.

6. This analysis of his previous record of service does not justify the disputed entry before us, given to him by Sh. Bashir Ahmad, learned Deputy Commissioner, as none of his superiors considered him below average or his personality in any manner poor. However, there is entry as mentioned above, highly adverse in nature, given to him by the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, but that entry is not sub judice before us, therefore, we cannot make any observation about the same. May be this entry has not so far been communicated to him or may the same has been communicated and accepted by the appellant. What we are concerned with the case is the present entry, which observed that the appellant's work was poor during the period under assessment and that his personality was also not considered a personality, which should be possessed by a Magis trate. For these two observations, we do not find any justification either made by the commenting officer himself in his comments or adverting his previous record by his service, which we have reproduced in our judgment.

7. The result is that keeping in view the law laid down by this Tribunal in so many judgments so reported in P L C as well as keeping in view the instruction of the Government issued from time to time for recording of" A. C. Rs. we accept the appeal and direct that the entry for the period from 20th July, 1981 to 28th November, 1981 given by Sh. Bashir Ahmad against the appellant, be expunged. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.