1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Ch. Ghulam Muhammad, Assistant /Record Keeper, D.C. Office, Sheikhupura, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order contained in Memo. No. AC/AEI/5084, dated 23rd August, 1981, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore. He has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that adverse entry conveyed to the appellant for the year 1978, be expunged and the impugned order be set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the countersigning authority after receiving the A.C.R. of the appellant from the Reporting Officer observed as under :‑ "Report is very lenient. Does not enjoy good reputation on side of integrity and general behaviour. Probably on this reason since long continuously the Deputy Commissioners retained him on non -public dealing post of vernacular or English Record‑in‑charge. Departmental enquiry filed due to retirement." He filed representation which was rejected by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, vide his order, dated 23rd August 1981, communicated on 2nd September, 1981. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney at length and have also perused the comments offered by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to revised schedule/chart issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab vide their letter No. 5847‑79/4654‑E(F)/IV, dated 27th December, 1979, appended with the appeal as Annexure 'E', the authority competent for recording remarks in A. C. R. in the case of Assistant would be Officer Inchange and A.D.C.(G.). According to learned counsel the Deputy Commissioner did not figure in any way for recording remarks in the A.C.R. 5. With regard to the merits of the case it has been argued that Mian Faiz Karim, the then Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, was inimical towards appellant a fact which is manifest from the record. It was argued that the Deputy Commissioner ordered the compulsory retire ment of the appellant dated 2nd December, 1979, against which appellant filed an appeal and the same was set aside and appellant was resorted into service. According to learned counsel this caused annoyance to the Deputy Commissioner who made it a point to ruin the record of service of the appellant even though he stood already retired in order to see that if, in case he is re‑instated, he would still suffer on account of this bad entry. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the revised Schedule, chart so mentioned above was issued in 1979, whereas the adverse entry was given in the year 1978, therefore, the argument so advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, would be of no avail in case of the appellant. 7. With regard to the merits of the case learned District Attorney has submitted that Deputy Commissioner being the overall incharge of his subordinates work and as countersigning authority, under the rules was in a better position to know the deeds and misdeeds of his subordinates. It has been further submitted that the record of the appellant throughout the service was a very chequered nature and it cannot be said that the assessment made by the D.C. was in no manner unjustified. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced and after perusing the record of this case, we are satisfied that the appellant was observed as corrupt, inefficient and careless in his work and cannot be stated that the appellant has been victimised by the Deputy Commissioner in any manner. However, the fact that the A.C.R. for the year 1978 was written in the year 1979, which has been so accepted in the parawise com ments by the Deputy Commissioner This delay seems to have been caused by the office in putting up A.C. R. late before the Deputy Commissioner and it would not be out of place to mention that the Appellant himself was holding the post of Bill Clerk and responsible for the delay of the same. This Tribunal has already held in case of Mubarak Ahmad Bedar (1982 P L C (C. S.) 426) that according to instructions, report should be promptly made in the first week of a new year and same be communicated to a civil servant before the end of June of the same year, but the same are directory in nature and not mandatory. The same view has been held by this Tribunal in case of Sardar Ali Gul Khan v. Government of Punjab in Appeal No. 343/1977. 9. In view of the above we do not feet any justification to interfere with the assessment of Mian Faiz Karim the then Deputy Commissioner; Sheikhupura, with regard to the conduct and work of the appellant. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits, with costs. M. I Appeal dismissed.