Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD JAVED QURESHI VS Respondent: CHIEF ENGINEERHonorable Justice Muhammad Aslam PirzadaMasud Ahmad Riaz,A.G. Humayun
1990 P L C (C
1990 P L C (C.S.) 508
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Aslam Pirzada, Chairman
MUHAMMAD JAVED QURESHI
Versus
CHIEF ENGINEER and another
Appeal No. 365/238 of 1985, decided on 28th November, 1989.
Civil service‑
‑‑‑ Adverse remarks, expunction of‑‑‑Basis of adverse remarks having disappeared, such remarks recorded in Annual Confidential Report of civil servant, would be without justification‑‑‑Regular enquiry was conducted into charges against civil servant as a result of which he was exonerated and matter stood concluded in enquiry which stood good‑‑‑Previous and subsequent record of civil servant speaking volumes in his favour and adverse entries were inconsistent with his service record‑‑‑Adverse entries were ordered to be expunged in circumstances.
Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th November, 1989.
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Javed Qureshi, Assistant Executive Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer, Irrigation, Farooqabad, District Sheikhupura, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Multan and Secretary to Government of the Punjab Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks conveyed to him vide letter dated 4‑2‑1984, be expunged and order dated 10‑4‑1985, set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed following adverse remarks in his ACR for the period from 1‑1‑1982 to 28‑10‑1982:‑‑
"Remarks by the 2nd countersigning authority.
Work and conduct both very poor. He is being. charge‑sheeted for sanctioning Nakka 82/5 which was outside chak boundary of, outlet RD.11,896/R, of Baqir Pur minor and thus Warabandi could not be implemented for 10 months and Irrigators suffered. He is not fit to be retained in service."
The appellant, filed a representation before respondent No. 2 which was considered and‑ rejected by letter dated 10‑4‑1985, hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the parties at length and perused the service record so produced before me with care.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Reporting Officer gave him good report and the countersigning authority agreed with the same who did not record any adverse opinion. However, the second countersigning authority, respondent No. 1 has given independent opinion discriminating with the above two officers so mentioned in the ACR of 1982. In his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the Chief Engineer has justified his observation yet the same is not supported by any cogent evidence or material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the appellant has been exonerated by the Department wherein this very charge was under inquiry. Learned District Attorney strongly opposed the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned order may be maintained...
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the service record so produced before me and find that since the appellant has been exonerated from this charge as a result of regular inquiry dated 16‑10‑1986 there is hardly any A justification to uphold and sustain the remarks so impugned. Further, this point has been fully thrashed in the case of Naseer‑ud‑Din v. Agriculture Department reported as 1989 P L C‑ (C.S.) 606 wherein it has been laid down that basis for adverse remarks having disappeared such remarks recorded in ACR of a civil servant were without justification.
6. As regards the remarks: work and conduct both very poor and he is not fit to be retained in service; are also based upon the abovementioned charge. Since the matter has been concluded in the inquiry, therefore, the same holds g good. The previous as well as subsequent record of the appellant speaks volumes in his favour and I find no adverse entry against him, therefore, the impugned remarks are inconsistent with his service record.
7. In view of the above detailed analysis of the case I accept the appeal, set aside, the impugned, :orders and direct that the impugned adverse remarks be expunged from the ACR of the appellant. There is no order as to costs.
M.Y.H./283/Sr.'P' Appeal accepted.