Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHOKHAR VS Respondent: PUNJAB PROVINCE
1985 P L C (C
1985 P L C (C.S.) 256
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Before Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member
MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHOKHAR
Versus
PUNJAB PROVINCE through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department and another
Case No. 609/2012 of 1982, decided on 10th July, 1983.
(a) Civil service‑
‑‑‑ Annual Confidential Report‑ ‑Expunction of adverse remarks‑‑Reporting officer, in his comments on representation favourably reporting in favour of civil servant and incident between reporting officer and civil servant, on tendering unconditional apology amicably settled‑‑Civil servant improving his conduct and foundation on which adverse remarks recorded in Annual Confidential Report, dismantled‑‑Adverse remarks expunged, in circumstances.
(b) Civil service‑‑
‑‑‑Expunetion of adverse remarks‑‑Respect to comments of reporting officer‑‑Tribunal, held, always pay respect to such comments while considering cases of expunction of adverse remarks.
F.K. Kureishy for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The appellant has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, and the Director‑General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks contained in Annexure 'A' for the period 1‑7‑1980 to 30‑6‑1981 be expunged and the order of respondent No.2, dated 18‑1‑1982 and respondent No. 1, dated 25‑10‑1982 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant, for the period from 1‑7‑1980 to 30‑6‑1981 vide Director‑General Excise and Taxation Punjab by letter, dated 18‑1‑1982. The appellant made this appeal to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore which was rejected as conveyed by Director‑General, Excise and Taxation Punjab, Lahore vide letter, dated 25‑10‑1982. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that while the appellant was working as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala, an incident took place between the appellant and the Excise and Taxation Officer Gujranwala on 1‑6‑1981, which resulted in minor penalty of censure to the appellant. This also lead to the entry of adverse remarks in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the period 1‑7‑1980 to 30‑6‑1981. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this has happened due to an unfortunate dispute between him and his superior. Ch. Nazir Ahmad regarding allotment of room in the office. Though this matter was settled amicably between the appellant and his superior, even then this has led to entry of adverse remarks in his A. C. R., as mentioned above. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was censured due to above incident by Director Excise and Taxation vide his order, dated 11‑4‑1982. On his appeal to the Director‑General Excise and Taxation, the censure so imposed was vacated by the Director‑General, Excise and Taxation vide his order, dated 30‑10‑1982. As the very basis of this issue were withdrawn by the departmental authorities, hence, there was no justification of these adverse remarks and should have also been withdrawn. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on the principles of fair play, equity and justice, the respondents are bound to expunge the adverse remarks, as they have themselves dismantled the foundation on which these adverse remarks were built.
5. Controverting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney has pointed out that the impugned order, dated 11‑3‑1982 by which the appellant was censured and the evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant had misbehaved with his superior and thus, the misconduct has been duly proved against him. It was submitted by the learned District Attorney that the adverse remarks recorded in the appellant's A.C.R. for the year 1980‑81 have been recorded correctly and lawfully.
6. I have given
my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record in this case. I have also perused the comments offered by the Excise and Taxation Officer concerned (Ch. Nazir Ahmad), the Reporting Officer, on the ,representation of the appellant for expunction of adverse remarks which reads as follows:‑
"2. Comments offered by the Excise and Taxation officer concerned (i.e. Ch. Nazir Ahmad) on the representation are as follows: ‑
'It is submitted that the enquiry against the conduct of Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Kitokhar, Assistant, Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala was not preceded with. This was on account of his tendering unconditional apology and which was accepted on humanitarian grounds. In his representation too the official has said so again and again. For, that matter I have no objection if the request of the official as contained in his representation is considered and representation is decided on merits please'."
Though these comments were offered by the reporting officer, even then, these did not find favour of the Director Excise and Taxation Lahore and Gujranwala Divisions, who did not agree for expunction of adverse remarks. While forwarding the representation of the appellant on 15th September, 1982 to the Director‑General Excise and Taxation Punjab, Lahore the Director, Excise and Taxation Lahore and Gujranwala Divisions made the following recommendation:‑
"3. As for as the facts of the case are concerned, the official, while serving in the Excise and Taxation Office Gujranwala as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, had a quarrel with Ch. Nazir Ahmad, the then Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala in connection with the allotment of office accommodation on 1‑6‑1981. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar being directly serving under the Excise and Taxation Officer was required not to disobey or pick up a quarrel in any circumstances. If he was aggrieved with the allotment even then he was not supposed to set a bad example of disobedience and in discipline. From the above it can easily be confirmed that his conduct for the period under report was not upto the mark and needed improvement.
He has no claim for expunction of adverse remarks. His represen tation may please be rejected."
It is worth mentioning that the same Director prior to this, vide his endorsement, dated 7‑6‑1983, conveyed the Excise and Taxation Officer Gujranwala that the penalty of "censure" imposed on the appellant had been vacated by the Director‑General, Excise and Taxation Punjab and necessary 'entry be made in the service book of the appellant to this effect. This penalty of "censure" was imposed as a result of a quarrel as mentioned above which also resulted in the entry in appellant's A.C.R. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has a weight that the foundation, on which these adverse remarks were made in the A. C. R., has been dismantled themselves by the departmental authorities and thus there is every justification for expunction of these adverse remarks.
7. In the case of the expunction of adverse remarks, we always pay respect to the comments of the reporting officer. I find that in this case, the reporting Officer has commented favourably in favour of the appellant, due to the reasons that the appellant had tendered unconditional apology which was accepted by the reporting Officer and the matter was settled. The adverse remarks are conveyed to a person to mend himself and remove the defects so pointed out or communicated to him. In this particular case, I find that the appellant did realize his fault, apologized to his superior which was accepted by him and thus he had shown his improved conduct and behaviour. Also keeping the fact in view that the penalty of "censure" based on this conduct of the appellant was withdrawn by the departmental authorities, hence, there is every justification in expunction of the adverse remarks.
8. Keeping the above analysis in view, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and it is directed that the adverse remarks so recorded in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the period from 1‑7‑1980 to 30‑6‑1981 be expunged.
There will be no order as costs.
M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.