Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUI VS Respondent: AGRONOMIST (LIVESTOCK), AYUB AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABADHonorable Justice ABDUL HAMID KHAN,Javed Ahmed Cheema
1993 P L C (C
1993 P L C (C.S.) 1280
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Akhtar Hassan, Chairman, Abdul Hamid Khan, and Syed Aal‑e-Ahmad, Members
Dr. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUI
Versus
THE AGRONOMIST (LIVESTOCK), AYUB AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD and 2 others
Appeal No. 581 of 1990, decided on 24th January, 1993.
Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Adverse remarks‑‑‑Expunction of‑‑‑Employee seeking expunction of adverse remarks against him, had contended that he had been discharging his official duties with due care, caution and to the best of his abilities; that he was never called upon to explain his position during period under report; that while recording such remarks, no material was available before Reporting Officer and that remarks were based on conjectures and surmises‑‑‑Authority had admitted that no record was present to show any complaints about non cooperation of employee towards his superiors; colleagues and subordinates‑‑ Reporting Officer had himself explained that alleged adverse remarks were added in Annual Confidential Report of employee in order to get improvement in his work and conduct and had himself recommended that since employees'` had made marked improvement in his work and conduct, remarks in question be expunged‑‑‑Even otherwise adverse remarks were conveyed to employee after a delay of over four years‑‑‑Adverse remarks against employee according to admission of authorities, themselves being corrective in nature, same could not be allowed to stand‑‑‑Adverse remarks against employee were ordered to be expunged.
Appellant in person.
Javed Ahmed Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th January, 1993.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant, Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui, while posted as Assistant Dairy Technologist in the Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad was given the following adverse remarks by respondent No. 1 in his Confidential Report for the period 1‑5‑1981 to 31‑12‑1981 which "ere also endorsed by respondent No. 2.
Par ‑ II
(20) Behaviour with public. Is inclined to be arrogant.
(22) Observance of measures. Is inclined to be negligent,
(23) Punctuality. Unpunctual.
Pen‑Picture Little Cooperative."
2. His departmental representation for the expunction of the above adverse remarks having been rejected by respondent No. 3, the appellant has filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The appellant's contention that he "had been discharging his official duties with due care, caution and up to the best abilities and capabilities" has been denied neither by the Reporting Officer nor by the respondents. Likewise, the appellant's assertions that he was never called upon to explain his position during the period under report, that while recording these remarks there was no material before the Reporting Officer and that the adverse remarks given in Part II of the Report were based on conjectures and surmises have not at all been controverted by the respondents. They have admitted that there was no record to "show any complaints about his cooperation towards his superiors, colleagues and subordinates". Above all the Reporting Officer has now explained that the adverse impugned "remarks were added in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1981 in order to get improvement in his work and conduct" which implies that these remarks were given by way of advice. He has recommended that since the appellant has now "made marked improvement in his work and conduct, hence the remarks in question be expunged". To this may be added the fact that these remarks were conveyed to the appellant after a delay of over four years.
4. In view of the accommodative attitude of the respondents themselves, the learned District Attorney was hardly in a position to oppose the prayer of the appellant for the expunction of the impugned remarks. These being admittedly corrective in nature and the rest of them against facts, the impugned remarks cannot be allowed to stand and are hereby expunged. There are no orders as to costs.
H.B.T./437/Sr.P Appeal accepted.