1985 PLC(CS) 853

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Jam Jan Muhammad, Land Acquisition Collector, Multan Development Authority, Multan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which be has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the period from 1st January, 1982 to 31st December, 1982 be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Assistant Commissioner, Minchanabad, received adverse report from Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur for the period from 1st January, 1982 to 31st December, 1982 as under

"He is weak and prone to 'safarish'. His reputation is not good. He allotted land resumed under M.L.R. 89, without any authority to more than 100 persons who did not deserve."

He filed representation against the same before the next higher authority and it was found that the remarks were consistent with the facts, and the appeal was rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the A.C.R. of the appellant was not initiated and countersigned in the month of January, 1983 as required by rules, and the same was not communicated to him by the end of June, 1983 but in the month of October in violation of Rules. He has submitted that respondent No. 2 who had given adverse remarks under appeal himself awarded the good report to the appellant in the year 1981. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the allotment of lands referred to in the remarks pertained to the year 1981, could not be made basis for adverse entry in the A.C.R. for the year 1982. He argued that the allotments so declared unauthorised by respondent No. 2 was not unauthorised but within the legal jurisdiction of the appellant as Collector. Learned Counsel further submitted that Deputy Commissioner had given him good report and was always found honest and good officer by the Local Council and Municipal Committee.

6. Against these remarks learned District Attorney has adopted the comments furnished by Syed Muhammad Hamid, Deputy Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department, on behalf of respondents as well as detailed comments given by the learned Com missioner when his representation was given due consideration by the next higher authority. According to the learned District Attorney learned Commissioner has refuted the allegation of bias and submitted that the learned Commissioner summoned the appellant, explained the serious defects as pointed out by the Additional Commissioner about his working but was not satisfied with the explanation so submitted by the appellant. It has been submitted further that the Commissioner had justified the stand by quoting number of instances, therefore, the same are liable to be maintained. With regard to the delay in the submission of report, it has been argued that the Reporting Officer had written A.C.R. on 14th September, 1983 and sent it to the Commissioner who recorded his opinion on its receipt.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the adverse report relates to the period 1st January, 1982 to 18th December, 1982 which period he worked under the said countersigning authority. With regard to the charge of allotments it has been submitted by the Commissioner that the appellant had made some allotments to some tenants totalling about 188 allotments under M. L .R. 89 and out of these 111 allotments were bogus as the allottees were not the tenants. He recorded the factual position as under

"Factual position is that the Additional Commissioner Bahawalpur Division inspected his office from 11th October, 1982 and found serious irregularities committed by the Petitioner. During this ins pection 188 files were detected in which he had made allotments of land surrendered under M.L.R. 89‑91, against the policy laid down by the Government. According to the laid down policy allotment could be made by the Deputy Commissioner D.L.C. to tenants of the concerned land during certain harvests. The Assistant Com missioner could at the most submit his recommendations to the Deputy Commissioner. He was not competent to order allotments. Mr. Jan Muhammad not only ordered allotments but he allotted land in at least III cases to persons who were never tenants of this land and many of the allottees were not tenants of any land. This was a very serious matter and savoured of 'corruption because they were to get ownership free of payment. I sent a D.O. letter on 20th November , 1982 to Mr. Safdar Javed Syed, Deputy Commissioner Bahawalnagar to review the files. The Deputy Commissioner asked the A.C. (Petitioner) vide letter No. P.C./3807 dated 18th December, 1982 to withdraw the allotments orders which the petitioner did. It indicated the conduct of the petitioner. During inspection by the Additional Commissioner it was further observed that

(i) The A.C. (Petitioner) did not give proper attention to the ins pection notes.

(ii) He never checked the attendance of his staff.

(iii) He did not maintain his Tour diary.

(iv) He did not check the cash book of his office with the result that it was not being maintained.

(v) He did not make efforts to effect the recovery of Government dues of his Sub‑Division. A huge amount to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs was in arrears with the Revenue Patwaris. Had he (Petitioner) some control over his staff the position would have been different.

(vi) He bad no record of arrears of Taccavi accounts.

(vii) He had been making frequent transfers of the Patwaris and then cancelling the same just after two or three days on 'Safarish' or for other motives. It clearly indicated his conduct and reputation.

(viii) He had been keeping the enquiry files of the Patwaris pending with him for a long time and no orders were passed or were passed very late.

In view of the justification so given by the learned Commissioner, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the assessment which according to us, is fully justified and based on concrete facts.

8. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.