FIDA HUSSAIN Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN
The appellant Fida Hussain has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned adverse remarks passed by Deputy Commissioner, Multan (respondent No. l), vide his letter dated 30‑12‑1985. The appellant has impleaded the D.C. Multan and Malik Hameed‑ud‑Din, Magistrate 1st Class as respondents Nos. l and 2 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks may be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Fida Hussain was communicated the following adverse remarks by Mr. Hameed‑ud Din, Magistrate (respondent No.2) for the year ending 1963:‑
"6(11) Reported to be corrupt. Reported to be corrupt as he was raided by Anti corruption Department; before that there was no complaint.
4. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Multan which was rejected vide his order dated 12‑2‑1986. Hence this appeal.
5. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the adverse remarks were given only because he was raided by Anti‑Corruption Establishment as specified in the impugned adverse remarks. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the appellant was acquitted by the learned Special Judge, A.C. Multan and as such the adverse remarks have become unjustified. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded against the order of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption and as such the impugned orders against the adverse remarks may be expunged.
6. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the adverse remarks were justified because the appellant was raided by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment and a criminal case was registered against him.
7. I have carefully considered the point so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney and I am of the opinion that at the time of recording the A. C. R. the impugned adverse remarks were justified because the appellant was really involved in a criminal case by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment. However,) after the acquittal of the appellant by the learned Special Judge vide p his order dated 23‑1‑1985 there appears to be no justification for maintaining the impugned adverse remarks against the appellant.
Hence the appeal is accepted and the respondents are directed to expunge the impugned adverse remarks against the appellant.
Judgment to be communicated to the parties.
No orders for the costs.
A.E./77/S.Tr Appeal accepted.