1984 PLP (C (PLC)

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 27th April, 1981 passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside. He has further prayed that the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1979 against the appellant be ordered to be expungned.

3. Brief history of the case is that the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of the Appellant for the year 1979 were communicated to the Appellant in May, 1980 as follows:‑

(ii) Keeping Files and Papers Below Average in tidy condition. (vii) Integrity. Doubtful (9) Fitness for promotion. No According to the appellant, his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1979 was written by the two officers, one officer gave him good report while the second officer gave him adverse report which was misconceived, unwarranted and uncalled for and is based on biased attitude of the reporting officer. This all happened after his transfer from Town Com mittee, Chunian. He had strained relations with his successor. His successor and another official of the Town Committee, Chunian managed to instigate the reporting officer against the appellant. The reporting officer, thus did not apply his independent mind and while writing his A. C. R. was under the influence of these officials. Furthermore, the remarks given by this officer were without any facts and were given without any cogent reasons ; while the other officer under whom he had worked for a larger period, according to appellant's information, gave him very good report. The Appellate Authority and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, did not apply independent mind while disposing of the appeal/ representation of the appellant. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that adverse remarks given by the second officer were not in accordance with the facts, were uncalled for and need to be expunged. He also argued that these were as a result of instigation, intrigues and the reporting officer did not apply his independent. Thus, the adverse entries are biased and be struck of from A. C. Rs. of the appellant. The learned District Attorney controverted these arguments by saying that he would adopt parawise comments offered by respondent No. 2 on the appeal of the appellant filed before the Tribunal. He further submitted that as per earlier decision taken by Punjab Services Tribunal in similar cases, the comments offered by the reporting officer on the representation of the appellant may be perused to arrive at definite conclusion.

5. We have given anxious thoughts to the arguments put forward by the appellant's counsel, the learned District Attorney and as per policy of the Punjab Services Tribunal, we have gone through the comments offered by Assistant Commissioner, Kasur to the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur on the representation of the appellant vide his letter No. A. C. 80I 2259, dated 11th November. 1980. He has rebutted the contention of the appellant regarding entries being biased and made under instigation. The Assistant Commissioner has mentioned "It is incorrect that Mr. And Ahmad or anybody else instigated me to make the impugned A. C. R. Complaints are seldom received about how a certain public official maintains his files. It is for the officer to make his own evaluation of the ability of the concerned official on the strength of his own observations As such my remarks about petitioner's quality of work vie‑a‑vie maintenance of files and his fitness for promotion can hardly be disputed". It is further clear from his service record that his conduct is not, even satisfactory after that as well. He was arrested on 23rd December, 1981 in case F. I. R. No. 28, dated 23rd December, 1981 under section 161, P. P. C. 5(2) 47, P. C. A. The appellant remained in judicial lock up for 18 days and was bailed out by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption.

5. Keeping in view the above facts we conclude and hold, there are no merits in his appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no cost to the parties. M. I. Appeal dismissed.