KHIZAR HAYAT Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Mian Khizar Hayat, Divisional Forest Officer, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Punjab Province, through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wild Life and Fish eries Department. Lahore as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks given on the report covering the period 18th September, 1980 to 31st December, 1980 be expunged and costs of this appeal be allowed in his favour. He has also prayed that the order, dated 11th April, 1982 by which his representation has been rejected be also set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Divisional Forest Officer, was given adverse report as under:‑----

"Had to be shifted as Conservator of Forests, Development was not satisfied with him."

It will be useful to mention here that Mr. M. A. U. K. Sumbal, who was posted as Conservator of Forest/ Development and Works Planning Circle also gave him adverse entries covering the period from 1st January, 1960 to 17th September, ly8U. A very black picture was painted of him and in all the 17 entries he was found falling in each and every respect. The pen‑picture about him as given by Mr. M. A. U. K. Sumbal was as under :‑‑-

"A soft spoken but cunning officer. Incapable of getting work from his subordinates. Victimizes them for personal reasons. Tries to browbeat through blackmail and false accusations. May not be entrusted with a job when funds are involved. Undependable and Irresponsible. Meshed up the affairs of his division badly."

He filed a representation against these remarks and the same was accepted and the entire entries which were made against him including the pen picture was expunged by the Government vide, dated 8th May, 1982, at Annexure "C"

The representation filed by the appellant against the present entry was also rejected as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that while the Conservator of forest had given the appellant good report but the countersigning Officer observed about him that he "had to be shifted as Conservator of Forests, Development was not satisfied with him. According to learned counsel as the basis of these remarks has been expunged, therefore, the present adverse entry would automatically pale into insignificance. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant has been victimised through on unholy conspiracy and if the adverse remarks which have been given to him by the countersigning authority are not expugned he is going to suffer heavily. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant is not as clear as he pretends to be for the reason that an enquiry is still pending against him with regard to the fiscal matters and he has been further imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,802.10 the appeal of which is still pending with the Tribunal. However, with regard to the present adverse entry the learned District Attorney has submitted that the value of the present adverse entry be judged in accordance with the pleading so made by the parties.

5. We have given our anxious thought to the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and find that the transfer of the appellant was ordered vide order, dated 2nd September, 1980 while the reporting period involved in this case is from 18th September, 1980 to 31st December, 1980. In view of above we are of the confirmed views that the fact of transfer is not covered during the period under report. We are further of the view that when the real basis of the present adverse entry had been written off by the Govern ment there is no reason to maintain the same which in fact is consequential to the report of Mr. Sumbal.

Without going into the merits of the case as well as other ancillary matter which still has to be adjudged by this tribunal we have no hesitation to hold that in view of the above facts this adverse entry cannot be maintained we, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and direct that the adverse entry so given against the appellant be expunged.

However, the parties will bear their own costs.

M. I. Appeal accepted.