GHULAM FARID LANGERIAL Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SGA
1. KH. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF (MEMBER).‑‑ Ghulam Farid Langerial, extra‑Assistant Commissioner/GAR, Multan has filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, impleading the Government A the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Services and General administration and Information Department, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of the present appeal the appellant has impugned the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R., one from 1‑1‑1984 to 16‑6‑1984 and another 17‑6‑1984 to'31‑12‑1984 and has also impugned the order of the Additional Chief secretary rejecting his representation vide his order, dated 5‑2‑1986.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Magistrate First Class, Multan from 1‑1‑1984 to 16‑6‑1984 and from 17‑6‑1984 to 41‑12‑1984 as Extra‑Assistant Commissioner/GAR to D.C. The then commissioner, Multan Division, Multan Mr. Farid‑ud‑Din Ahmad recorded the following adverse remarks in his A.C.R. it reads as under:‑‑
2. 1‑1‑1984 to 16‑6‑1984 .
3. "Not successful in an office job"
4. 17‑6‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984
5. Part‑III
6. Column 4. Acceptance of responsibility.
7. Column 9. Judgment.
8. Below Average
9. Part‑IV
10. Column 4. Supervision and Guidance Below average.
11. Part VII
(a) Sense of judgment is poor. Control of staff is ineffective as GA(R). Needed reminders to get replies to even routine matters.
12. The appellant' made representation against these adverse remarks to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide his order, dated 5‑2‑1986. Hence the appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
4. After preliminary hearing, the case was admitted for regular hearing and notice was sent to the respondent who have filed the written objections controverting the averments of the appellant.
5. The respondent has given the following justification in para. 3 of the .written objections:‑‑‑
13. "3 and 4.The second countersigning officer i.e., Commissioner, Multan Division has‑ stated that his remarks are based on facts which are supported by office record. According to the Commissioner, he had also verbally spoken to Mr. Tariq Sultan, former Deputy Commissioner, Multan that the performance of the appellant was not upto the mark. His priorities were not correct. Some of the important matters were completely ignored by the appellant and a number of reminders had to be sent to get a reply. According to the Commissioner, Mr. Langerial, the appellant probably got so bogged down with the routine matters that the important matters escaped his notice. As an instance the Commissioner has quoted the enquiry charge‑sheet case of one Mr. Muhammad 1qbal, Naib‑Tehsildar. Mr. lqbal was placed under suspension under the Commissioner's orders and was to be charge -sheeted for negligence and misconduct. The matter was kept pending by the General Assistant (Revenue), Multan i.e.', the appellant, for over 2 months with the result that Mr. Muhammad lqbal got promoted in the meantime. The Commissioner had to make a special request to the Member (Revenue) B.O.R. to get Mr. Iqbal's promotion reversed. In a case which was in the personal knowledge of the Commissioner and was actually being conducted under his instructions, Mr. Langerial, the appellant, acted as if it was just a routine matter and kept it pending to an extent that Mr. lqbal got promoted and left the Division. The Commissioner added that only if Mr. Langerial had not enjoyed good reputation, he would have suspected him of doubtful integrity.
14. The Commissioner has also stated that there were other instances where priority matters were treated in routine by the appellant."
6. We have made deep appraisal of the entire record and the attendant circumstances of the case. We have gone through the report of the Commissioner given in justification of the impugned adverse remarks. The back‑ground of the grievance of the Commissioner is that one Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad, the then Naib‑Tehsildar, Mian Channu Tehsil Khanewal wilfully delayed implementation of judicial order passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan on 15‑4‑1984, whereby the Colony Naib‑Tchsildar was required to deliver the possession of the Horse Breeding Tenancy of Chak No. 132/16‑L to one Noor Muhammad Khakh of the same chak. Application alongwith the said order, dated 15‑4‑1984 was presented to the accused Colony Naib‑Tehsildar by Noor Muhammad at the Sub‑Tehsil Office on 24‑4‑1984, who requested for delivery of possession of land accordingly. With a view to delaying the delivery of possession the accused Colony Naib‑Tehsildar obtained a report from the Kanungo Halqa showing apprehension of ‑breach of peace and submitted the same to the Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal for providing police assistance. In fact no formal permission of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector was necessary as the officer was free to seek police assistance from the Station House Officer, concerned directly. It is clear that the Colony Naib Tehsildar favoured the opposite party Syed Fazal Hussain Shah Gillani by giving him opportunity of obtaining Stay Order from the appellate Court, which was resultantly obtained 'on 26‑4‑1984 and conveyed to the Colony Naib‑Tehsildar by the opposite party telegraphically. The Commissioner was of the view that seeking of permission of Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal was merely a pretext for delaying implementation of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan's order dated 15‑4‑1984, which was indeed in conspiracy with Syed Fazal Hussain Gillani, opposite party: Consequently Mr. Muhammad lqbal Ahmad, Ex‑Colony Naib Tehsildar was suspended by the Commissioner, Multan Division vide his order dated 6‑6‑1984. The Commissioner also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Multan to submit draft charge‑sheets against Muhammad lqbal Ahmad, Naib Tehsildar and his co‑accused Kanungo for disciplinary proceedings against, them jointly under provision of Rule 2(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The draft charge‑sheet of Naib‑Tehsildar was submitted to the Commissioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan on 17‑9‑1984 but the draft charge‑sheet of Riaz Ahmad, Girdawar Kanungo was inordinately delayed which was ultimately submitted on 17-1‑1985. The Commissioner, Multan Division was very much annoyed over t1ie late submission of draft charge‑sheet of Naib‑Tehsildar and Girdawar Kanungo. He suspected that delay was caused in league with the appellant, the General Assistant Revenue (GAR). Consequently he wrote a demi-official letter to the then Deputy Commissioner Mr. Tariq Sultan, regarding delay in submission of draft charge‑sheet and conveyed his displeasure to G.A.R. The demi‑official letter is material and relevant which is reproduced hereunder:‑‑
15. D.O.No. FB-2‑877/79,
16. COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION,
17. Dated 10‑1‑1985.
18. Subject:‑‑Delay in the submission of Draft charge‑sheet against Mr. Riaz Ahmad Girdawar Kanungo, Mian Channu.
19. Dear
20. Mr. Muhammad lqbal Ahmad formerly Naib‑Tehsildar, Mian Channu and Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Girdawar Kanungo, Mian Channu were ordered to be proceeded against under Efficiency and Discipline Rules in June, 1984 for delaying the implementation of a Judicial order of Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and favouring respondent. Your office was asked to send draft charge‑sheet against the officials. Charge -sheet against Mr. Muhammad lqbal Ahmad was sent after a lapse of 3 months vide your memo. No. 2728/SK, dated 17‑9‑1984. Your office was then informed that the Kanungo also has to be charge‑sheeted by this officer as the Charg are the same and the enquiry will have to be joint. Ever since September, 1984your office has been reminded vide memos of even number, dated 19‑i1‑1984, 9‑12‑1984 and 20‑12‑1984. The charge‑sheet is not forthcoming.
21. This is the case where proceedings have been started by the Commissioner himself for the violation of Commissioner's judicial order. The interest taken by your office is visible from the record. I am convinced that the GAR and his branch has been grossly negligent and is primarily responsible for delaying this case. I would like you to convey my displeasure to Malik Ghulam Farid Langerial GAR in your office. You may also fix responsibility for the delay on the officials concerned for appropriate action against them.
22. Please ensure that the charge‑sheet is sent immediately for proceeding further. At the end I would like to point out that the delay has caused a lot of inconvenience because Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad, Naib Tehsildar has been in the meantime, promoted as Tehsildar. Now the entire proceedings will have to be sent to Board of Revenue.
23. Yours sincerely,
24. Sd/‑ Farid‑ud‑Din Assshmad.
25. Mr. Tariq Sultan,
26. Deputy Commissioner, Multan."
27. The reply of that demi‑official letter by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan is also relevant for the determination of the points involved in this appeal which is reproduced hereunder:‑‑
28. D.O. No. 119/GAR
29. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
30. MULTAN.
31. February 2, 1985.
32. Subject:‑‑Delay in the submission of Draft Charge‑sheet against Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Girdawar Kanungo, Mian Channu.
33. Dear Mr. Farid,
34. Kindly refer to your D.O.No. EB‑2‑877/79, dated 10‑1‑1985 on the subject cited above.
2. I have enquired into this matter personally and checked the office record. Ch. Muhammad lqbal, Colony Naib Tehsildar, Mian Channu was placed under suspension vide order of the Commissioner No. 13281‑83, dated 6‑6‑1984. It was also directed by the same order that Mr. Riaz Ahmad Kanungo should be placed under suspension forthwith on the same allegation. Draft charge‑sheets in respect of both the CNT and Kanungo were to be prepared and submitted under (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. This order was unfortunately mis‑understood by my predecessor'. The said Girdawar was placed under suspension on the same day and Sh. Abdus Salam was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Colony Naib‑Tehsildar was re‑instated vide order of Commissioner No. EB‑2‑877/79, dated 12‑9‑1984. It was directed that the charge‑sheets against the Revenue Officer and the Kanungo be submitted on 17‑9‑1984 while that of Girdawar was not sent.
35. It was directed vide No. EB‑2‑877/79, dated 3‑11‑1984 that the enquiry against the said Kanungo be stopped forthwith and draft charge‑sheet against the Kanungo, statement of allegation be submitted. These orders were complied with and Sh. Abdus Salam, M.I.C. submitted to D.C. Office the draft charge‑sheet, list of witnesses and documents as desired vide No. 1117/M.I.C., dated 5‑11‑1984. This was not put up to any officer and kept pending by NSKI. The same was ultimately submitted vide No. 46/S.K., dated 17‑1‑1985. The lower functionaries seemed to connive to delay the case deliberately as in this period the Girdawar has retired and CNT promoted.
36. I have already called explanations of officials concerned. They will be dealt with severely. The delay and embarrassment caused in this case is highly regretted.
37. With warm regards.
38. Yours sincerely,
39. Sd/‑ Tariq Sultan.
40. Mr. Farid‑ud‑Din Ahmad,
41. Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan.
7. As earlier mentioned that Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad Naib‑Tehsildar was suspended by the Commissioner, Multan Division on 6‑6‑1984 and the Deputy Commissioner, Multan was asked to provide the draft charge‑sheet. The same was supplied to the Commissioner, Multan Division on 17‑9‑1984. There was no substantial delay in providing the draft charge‑sheet in respect of Naib Tehsildar. However, admittedly there was a substantial delay in supply of charge‑sheet in respect of Riaz Ahmad, Kanungo which was done in January, 1985. The then Deputy Commissioner Mr. Tariq Sultan as is manifest from his demi‑official letter addressed to the Commissioner has explained reason for this delay and has not held the appellant responsible for any such delay. The contention of the appellant is that the case for supply of draft charge‑sheet was for the first time put up on 16‑9‑1984. On the following day, he submitted the charge‑sheet to the Commissioner. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant has been dealing with this case from very beginning or was responsible for the delayed submission of charge‑sheet. The respondents have not produced anything in rebuttal of the said contention of the appellant. The Commissioner in his justification report admitted that the appellant enjoyed good reputation. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there was some misunderstanding on the part of the Commissioner regarding delayed submission of draft charge‑sheet. The Revenue Assistant has to work under the direct control/supervision and directions of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is the best Judge about his performance. The Deputy Commissioner has given him a good report for the relevant period. The impugned adverse report was the upshot of the misunderstanding as mentioned above and is without justification. We, therefore, expunge the entire adverse report for the period from 17‑6‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984. Similarly it is established from the report that the appellant for the period from 1‑1‑1984 to 16‑6‑1984 was not doing the office job and was performing the judicial duties as Executive Magistrate. Hence the remarks of the Commissioner "Not successful in an office job" are un‑warranted and without justification. We also expunge the said remarks.
8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the impugned adverse remarks are expunged. There will be no order as to costs.
42. A.E./221/Sr.P
43. Appeal accepted.