Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR KHAN GORAYA VS Respondent: GHULAM AHMAD, SESSIONS JUDGE, ATTOCKHonorable Justice MUHAMMAD MEHMOOD ASLAM PIRZADAM.A. Riaz,A.G. Humayun
1990 P L C (C
1990 P L C (C.S.) 820
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Mehmood Aslam Pirzada, Chainnam acid Malik Abdul Aziz, Member
MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR KHAN GORAYA
Versus
GHULAM AHMAD, SESSIONS JUDGE, ATTOCK and another'
Appeal No. 202/762 of 1988, decided on 4th March, 1990.
(a) Civil service‑‑
‑‑‑ Adverse remarks, expunction of‑‑‑Appellant was shown in Category 'A'& B in column of A.C.R. and nowhere he had been shown in Column `C'‑‑‑Record produced showed that even countersigning Authority had also not agreed with reporting officer as far as his adverse remarks were concerned‑‑‑Adverse remarks had not been supported by any material on record and respondent had failed to point out that there was any complaint against appellant by public or there was any other allegation‑‑‑None of remarks of reporting officer had been underlined in red ink by countersigning officer as per instructions for writing confidential reports which meant that countersigning officer had not approved and upheld adverse remarks‑‑‑Comments furnished on behalf of respondent spoke volume in favour of appellant‑‑‑Adverse remarks were thus ordered to be expunged.
(b) Civil service‑‑
‑‑‑ Adverse remarks‑‑‑If an officer is to be given adverse remarks then reporting officer is bound to issue warning to him prior to said period.
M.A. Riaz for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th February, 1990.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD MEHMOOD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).‑ Muhammad Jahangir Khan Goraya, has filed this appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974 in which he has impleaded Ghulam Ahmad Session Judge, Attock and Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore as respondent. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned adverse remarks pertaining to the period from 1‑3‑1986 to 30‑10‑1986 conveyed to him be expunged and order dated 28‑2‑1988 whereby the representation of the appellant was dismissed be set aside.
Brief facts of this case are that the appellant was communicated adverse remarks in his ACR which are reproduced below:‑
(a) PEN‑PICTURE
Belongs to a respectable and well to do Zamindar family; offers his prayers regularly; is probably obvious of accountability to God Almighty, or has no sense of proportion and fairplay; some how money has become his weakness and he stoops too low to have it. He made a solemn commitment to me to mend him self. Let us hope he abides by his pledge in future.
(b) COUNSELLING ,
He was repeatedly advised to take care of his reputation and take mercy upon the institution he had been assigned to. Response during his stay at Kasur and Chunian was dismaying.
(c) ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE
With his present approach and aptitude he does not suit the judiciary to tarnish the fair image of which he subscribed so copiously quite publicly.
Is mentally fertile although obsessed; can prove to be an effective and successful officer, if there comes a turning point in his life and he chooses to tread the path of virtue and righteousness in dispensing justice."
Appellant filed a representation before respondent No.2 which was dismissed on 28‑2‑1988. Hence this appeal.
We have heard the parties at length with the assistance of the departmental representatives.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned adverse remarks are result of misconception on the part of the reporting officer. Reliance has also been placed on following judicial pronouncements:‑
(i) 1988 P L C (C.S) 800, 431, 392, 560;
(ii) 1986 S C M R 2001;
(iii) 1986 P L C (C.S.) 117.
On the other hand learned DA. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have fully supported the case of respondents and submitted that remarks are fully justified and may be allowed to stand on the A.C.R. of the appellant.
Relevant portion of the parawise comments furnished by reporting officer read as under:‑
"I feel that he is really repentant over his life‑style in the past and is making a solemn pledge to reform himself. Even in the A.C.R. under challenge, I had at pages 4 and 5, alluded to this aspect of the officer who could be treated as fit for promotion if he genuinely tried to revolutionise himself. Information is that the officer is endeavouring to improve his image. If that is so and I hope that he is capable of improving himself, he may be sympathetically dealt with and I will have no objection, if in its gracious kindness, the Tribunal feels inclined to expunge the remarks as an act of benevolence and in expectation that the appellant would be a changed man in future."
We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that in the columns of A.C.R. the appellant has been placed m category `A' and `B' and nowhere he has been shown in column `C'. The record so produced before us reveals that even the countersigning Judge, his Lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas has also not agreed with the reporting officer as far as his adverse remarks are concerned. His Lordship has written "No remarks as do not know the Officer and has not seen his any work". The impugned adverse remarks are not even supported by any material available on file. Respondents have failed to point out that there was any complaint against the appellant by the public or there was any other allegation.
It is an established principle of law that if an officer is to be given adverse remarks then the, reporting officer is bound to issue warning to‑ him prior to the said period which has not been done in the present case, therefore we see no reason to uphold these remarks. Moreover we find serious violation of I instruction No. 13 as none of the remarks of the reporting officer have been underlined in red‑ink by the countersigning officer. It is thus clear that the countersigning officer has not approved and upheld 'the adverse remarks of the reporting officer for communication to the appellant. Even the comments furnished on behalf of the respondent No.1 speaks volume in favour of the appellant.
On a careful perusal of the facts of the tease we are of the considered view that remarks conveyed to the appellant are liable to be expunged.
In the light of above discussion we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that impugned adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. of the appellant be expunged. There is no order as to costs.
M.Y.H./300/Sr.P Appeal allowed.