1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Qazi Saleem Bakhtiar, D.S.P presently A/D.I.‑G., D.G. Khan Range, D.G. Khan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respon dent. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks conveyed by letter dated 15th March, 1983, as well as appellate order dated 12th July, 1984, be set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that by letter dated 15th March, 1983 the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks from his A.C.R. for the year 1982 :‑ "Mr. Saleem Bakhtiar was holding charge of one Wing of the Force at Lahore. A number of incidents were reported where the men under his command failed to rise equal to the onerous duties entrusted to them. Welfare aspect of the personnel was also not well looked after. He hardly makes the grade for higher appointment." The appellant filed a representation dated 21st April, 1983, in which he rebutted the impugned adverse remarks and submitted that the same were vague and factually incorrect. He made second representation but the same was rejected on 12th July, 1984, which has been communicated to the appellant by letter dated 23rd July, 1984. 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. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire Force under the appellant's command at Lahore was posted at Standing Wards at Lahore Fort, Assembly Hall, L.G. P's House and Commandant's House. According to the learned counsel the appellant has regularly been checking the Guards, questioning, enjoining, emphasising and explaining to the Force about assigned task and the best possible way to accomplish the same. It has been further argued that the regular meetings with Senior and Junior Officers of Special Branch, Martial Law Headquarters and others were held with regard to the performance of the said Force but the appel lant did not receive any complaint regarding the performance or conduct of any member of the said Force. It has been submitted that in spite of a tight time‑schedule, on various occasions viz. V. V.I. Ps' visit to Lahore, Moharram Ceremonies, Sports Events, Horse and Cattle Show, Students disturbances etc. P.R.O.P. Reserves, requisitioned from the P. R. P. Headquarters, had been performing their duties to the entire satisfaction of the S. S. P. Lahore, D. I. G. Lahore Range, Deputy Commandant and the Comman dant P. R. P. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that not a single incident was ever reported and/or observed previously by any sort of communication. It has been further submitted that the immediate superior of the appellant i. e. Deputy Commandant P. R. P. gave the appellant A‑1 report, therefore the Commandant P. R. P. had no justifica tion to disagree with the same. With regard to the detailed comments of the Commandant P.R.P. submitted by him it has been submitted that the same were nothing but mere narration to justify his comments which were absolutely against actual facts and the service record of the appellant. With regard to the mentioning of annexures by the Commandant as Annexure I, Annexure 2, Annexure 3, Annexure 4 and Annexure 5, it was submitted that these were nothing but general instructions conveyed by the Commandant to all Wing Commanders, Deputy Commandant, P.R.P. therefore, the same could not be treated as justification of the adverse observations of the worthy Commandant. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to part VII of A.C.R. in which it has been laid down as under :‑ "(a) Remarks of the Countersigning Officer‑Please report on the aspects, not touched upon by the reporting officer. If you disagree with the assessment of Reporting Officer, please give reasons therefor. You should also indicate how frequently you have seen work of the officer reported upon. If the officer has been assessed fit for promotion would you be prepared to accept him in the higher grade. 1f 'no, please give your reasons." Similarly he invited our attention to the instructions for filling up of A. C. R. Forms wherein para. 6, it has been laid down as under :‑ "6. Reporting Officer is expected to counsel the officer being reported upon about his weak points and advise him how to improve. Adverse remarks should normally be recorded when the officer fails to improve despite counselling." Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on a number of letters issued by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, by name to the appellant which are available on record as Annexure J and J‑1, in which the work of the appellant had been fully appreciated. 6. In view of the said instructions so laid down for the countersign ing Officers, as well as Reporting Officer learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that by analysing the entire history of the case, the adverse remarks were liable to be expunged. 7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the com ments so submitted by the respondent and has submitted that the assess ment so made by the countersigning officer is on justified grounds which found support from the documents on record, therefore, the same should be maintained. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the countersigning authority has tried to justify his assessment so made by him against the work and conduct of the appellant, by mentioning an incident of leakage of information of a detenu as well as incident of in which P.R.P. personnel of the same guard stole a transistor radio. He has considered the appellant as loose supervisor in the said matters. We have carefully examined this aspect of the case and find that the same has been fully rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellant in his rejoinder so placed on record as the countersigning officer has not indicated the particulars of two occasions, which became reasons for his above adverse observation. He has placed on record the names of Constable Khadim Hussain No. 1133, Head Constable Muhammad Jameel No. 2093 and Head Constable Muhammad Saleem No. 2064, who with the persistent briefing of the appellant to officers and Jawans were awarded commendation certificates and cash rewards for performing high sense of duty. Constable Khadim Hussain was awarded commendation certificate with cash reward of Rs. 500 on the recommendation of the appellant. He has also given the details of another incident when detenu wanted to give a chit for passing it to another person. The said constable displayed high sense of responsibility and reported the matter to Special Branch. Inspector Malik Manzoor Ahmad who was on checking duty, and the aforesaid Head Constable was encouraged and appreciated for displaying high sense of responsibility. Copy of Daily Diary Report dated 27th February, 1982 of Fort Guard Roznamcha placed as Annexure M of the rejoinder. Similarly in case of H. C. Muhammad Saleem No. 2064, who while on duty on Cell No. 14 at Fort Guard Lahore on 23rd May, 1982, detected prisoner Asif Butt while he was writing on the wall of Cell, some objectionable lines. This matter was brought to the notice of the D.S.P./Spl. Branch as per rules vide Daily Diary Report dated 23rd May, 1982 Roznamcha P. R. P. Fort Guard placed as Annexure 'N'. With these concrete instances fully supported by the documents prepared at the relevant time, it is abundantly clear that junior officers and Jawans were briefed by the appellant and thus it would not be correct to say that the appellant was lacking any supervision. While dealing with the case of a theft of a Transistor Radio of Special Branch employee, it has been proved that Inspector Guard Mr. Muhammad Azad brought to the notice of the appellant vide Daily Diary Report No 7 dated 10th January, 1982. Guidance of the Com mandant was sought who orally ordered that Guard Commander should interrogate suspected personnels of P.R.P. without getting the case regis tered. Upon the direction of the then Commandant (countersigning officer) 7/8 officers of the P. R. P. Guard posted at Fort Lahore were asked to compensate the Cook owner of the Radio by making voluntary contributions and this was compied with. However this incident cannot be taken as adverse to tip conduct. of the appellant as the matter was irrelevant with regard 'to his duties so assigned to him and also he had sorted out the matter by compensating the person who had lost the Transistor Radio. 9. With regard to the assessment of the countersigning authority that supervision of the appellant was loose. He has mentioned that on two occasions the countersigning officer had personally found the Inspector Incharge turning up late on duty, the plea of the appellant was that such like incidents were never brought to his notice by the Commandant or Deputy Commandant particularly when the appellant was seated 7/8 miles away from Fort in Qurban Lines. He has submitted 70 Daily Diary Reports which were got entered in Fort Guard Roznamcha by appellant for consideration. We are also satisfied that there is ample documentary evidence on record in the form of .affidavits Annexure XLI, Annexures U, V, W. Y. Z. Z‑I, Z‑2 etc. to show that there was hardly any laxity bf control or deterioration of relation between the P.R.P. or Special Branch so mentioned by the countersigning authority. Among these Annexures, Annexure U is worthy of consideration as this affidavit has been signed by no Body less than the rank of Superintendent of Police, who has categorically declared that on the whole P. R. P. Force was working with diligence, discipline and vigilance during the tenure of the appellant and at all occasions nothing came to his notice that the appellant and his sub ordinates had strained relations with the Special Branch of which be was Incharge at that particular time. Similarly the other affidavit also pointed to the fact that the appellant had been doing his duty honestly and with care. 10. In the face of the voluminous documents on record so produced by the learned counsel for the appellant, what we find is that the counter signing authority had given certain instances without providing the details of the same. Thus we have no alternative but to hold that the assessment made by the countersigning authority was against the instructions laid down in this behalf in the A. C. Rs. form and the same cannot be maintained, particularly when the appellant's immediate superior Deputy Commandant gave him an excellent chit. 11. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks made by the countersigning autho rity in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the year 1982, be expunged. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal accepted.