1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

9‑4‑1990 to 20‑8‑1990. the subject‑matter of Appeal No. 125/93 that stands disposed off vide the following short judgment of this Tribunal: "For reasons to be recorded later on, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the remarks sought to be expunged in the appeal are declared as not adverse." (ii) 10‑8‑1992 to 31‑12‑1992 which is the subject‑matter of the present Appeal No. 140/93. The representation of the appellant against the same, addressed to the Chief Secretary dated 21‑7‑1993 was rejected vide his orders as contained in the Letter No. SO/ACRs (S&GAD)S.Pel/93, dated 14th November, 1993. Hence, this appeal.

2. We have heard M/s. Naimatullah Qureshi, Sabihuddin Ahmed and Zia‑ul‑Haq Makhdoem the three (3) learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, the learned A.A.‑G. for the official respondents at length. We also examined the record of this appeal and various documents as called for by us and presented by Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Sheikh, S.O. (Appeals) through the learned A.A.G. on behalf of the official respondents. We have also gone through the full contents of the impugned A.C.R., for the period 10‑8‑1992 to 31‑12‑1992, which was intimated by, Mr. Tariq Jamil, the then D.I.G. Crime, Sindh and countersigned by Mr. Kamar Alam the then Inspector‑General of Police, Sindh. The Reporting Officer viz. Mr. Tariq Jamil, D.I.G.P., Government of Sindh in Part III of this A.C.R. relating to integrity had given the appellant grading 'A' (Good) whereas the Countersigning Officer viz. Mr. Kamar Alain, I.G.P., Sindh had down graded the same as 'C' (below average. The reasoning of the Countersigning Officer is reproduced below: "Reporting Officer's liberal report has ever looked some of his shortcomings, including his doubtful integrity and alleged patronization with criminals. But these reports are under probe. Report suitably mended and downgraded."

3. It is worthwhile to note that the Countersigning Authority viz. the then Inspector‑General of Police had based his adverse remarks on the allegations which were still, according to himself, under probe. Therefore, prima facie, these remarks were premature and uncalled for unless justified by the outcome of the said probe. As per established principle of law the allegations amounted to hearsay which is no evidence under the provisions of Evidence Act. We enquired specifically from Mr. Nazir‑ Ahmed Shaikh, S.O. (Appeals) who appeared on behalf of the official respondents, during the course of hearing, whether the alleged probe referred to, in the remarks of the Countersigning Officer, viz. the Inspector‑General of Police has been completed and if so what were the findings thereof? In reply to our query, the said S.O. (Appeals) slated before us that the alleged probe had not been completed and no findings thereof are on record. He was not even. in the knowledge as to whom or to what agency this alleged probe was referred to. In the absence of the same, we are left with no other option but to reach the conclusion that the adverse remarks of the first Countersigning Officer are nothing more but hearsay and in the absence of any evidence substantiating the alleged charges of doubtful integrity and patronization with criminals, the same cannot be held to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act as well as the principle of natural justice, fairplay and equity also being premature and presumptive of hearsay which is no evidence under law.

4. However, to examine the matter in further details, the Tribunal had also desired for the copies of the A.C.Rs. of the appellant for the year 1990 to 1993 i.e. prior to the impugned A.C.R. and immediately thereafter to ascertain the general reputation of the appellant about his integrity. In the A.C.R. for the period 9‑4‑1990 to 20‑8‑1990 the Reporting Officer viz. Mr. Muhammad Mohsin Panwar, the then D.I.G. Special Branch, had given him B' (average) in Part III Integrity countersigned by the then I.G.P., Sindh viz. Syed Sadat Ali Shah without any change. Hence, there is no adverse entry as regards integrity, in this A.C.R. 1n the A.C.R. for the period 20‑8‑1990 to 5‑12‑1990 the Reporting Officer viz. Mr. Rahee Khan Ershi, the then D.I.G., Sukkur had left the A.C.R. blank as the period under report was less than three months. 1n this A.C.R., too there is nothing adverse regarding the integrity of the appellant. As regards the A.C.R. for the Calendar year 1991 the S.O. (Appeals) stated before the Tribunal that the same are "Missing" and have not been reconstructed. In the A.C.R. for the period 1‑1‑1992 to 10‑8‑1992 initiated by Mr. Asad Jehangir Khan, the then D.I.G. Crimes, Sindh the appellant was given `B' (average) by the Reporting Officer. However the then Countersigning Officer viz. Mr. Kamar Alam the then I.G.P., Sindh observed as under:‑‑ "Remarks mentioned in the A.C.R. for the period 10‑8‑1992 to 31‑12‑1992 are re‑iterated." These remarks have already been discussed and found to be nothing more than hearsay in the absence of any substantiating‑evidence and therefore we have reached the conclusion that the same were premature, uncalled for and cannot be held to have been correctly recorded according to principles of natural justice, fairplay and equity. Lastly in the A.C.R. for the period 20‑8‑1993 to 13‑12‑1993 the Reporting Officer viz. Mr. Fakhruddin the then D.16‑G.P., Special Branch, Sindh has given the appellant `A' (Good) in Part III ‑ Integrity, while the Countersigning Officer viz. Mr. Muhammad Mohsin Panwar was offered no comments, his tenure in office from 29‑8‑1993 to 12‑11‑1993 being less than three months. The conclusion arrived through those A.C.Rs. is that the four (4) D.I.G.Ps. under whom the appellant worked from 1990 to 1993 viz. M/s. Muhammad Mohsin Panwar, Asad Jahangir Khan, Tariq Jamil and Fakhruddin had not given any adverse remarks to the appellant regarding his integrity. While the first three reported his Integrity as good (A) average (B) the last named officer graded the same as `Good' and therefore we are unable to uphold the adverse remarks given by Mr. Kamar Alam the then I.G.P. Sindh in A.C.R. for the period 10‑8‑1992 to 31‑12‑1992 and also in A.C.R. for the period 1‑1‑1992 to 18‑12‑1992 to have been correctly recorded specially in the absence of any substantiating documentary evidence being based on hearsay only without awaiting for the results of the alleged probe against the appellant the whereabouts of which are not on record and it is not even known as to which agency was entrusted with this alleged probe. We have also gone through the comments of Mr. Kamar Alam, the then I.G.P., Sindh in‑ reply to the representation of the appellant wherein it was alleged that the appellant had appointed certain persons in Police Department, on the recommendations of one Manthar Jatoi an alleged criminal and Patharedar that could not be substantiated by the concerned S.P./D.I.G. It is worthwhile to note that the Countersigning Officer in the concluding line, had observed that he had no objection to the expunction of the adverse remarks recorded by him if the appellant is acquitted in the on going probe against him. It shows lack of conviction about the veracity of, the allegations against the appellant. It is not on record to which agency was entrusted with such a probe and no findings thereof are available in the official record as confirmed by S.O. (Appeals) before us.

5. For the reasons recorded above we are of the considered view that the alleged adverse remarks of the Reporting officer in the impugned A.C.Rs. being based on hearsay evidence without any substantiating evidence or documents, recorded prematurely without awaiting for the findings of the alleged probe against the appellant and of which no record or trace is available with the official respondents, were not recorded correctly being in violation of the provisions of Evidence Act and principles of natural justice, fairplay and equity. We, therefore, allow this appeal and order for the expunction of the same, with no order as to costs. The detailed reasons of this appeal are also valid for our short order in Appeal No. 125/93. H.B.T./593/Sr.S Appeal allowed.