1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSAN UL HAQ CHAUDHARY (CHAIRMAN).--The relevant facts for the decision of the appeal are that the appellant is working as Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police. While he was posted as S.H.O. Khushab in the year 1985, the following adverse remarks were recorded in his A.C.R./Dossier:- Column No.5. (a) Investigation of crime "Below Average." against property. Column No. 15. "Integrity" "controversial" General Remarks. "An average officer who does not enjoy, very good reputation about his integrity." This report covers the period from 29-5-1985 to 31-12-1985 and the adverse remarks were conveyed to the appellant by the respondent No.2 through demi-official letter dated 1-10-1986.

2. The appellant submitted a representation against these adverse remarks. The respondent No.2 after due consideration expunged the remarks in the column 'N'. 5(a) and column No.15 and ordered that General Remarks will stay. The operative portion of the order reads as under:- "The entry about investigation of crime against property under column No.5(a) is modified from below average to average; Column No.15 is modified as not known. The General Remarks will stay in his annual confidential report." The appellant has now filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974. The same was admitted to regular hearing on 27-7-1987 and notices were issued to the respondents and the appeal was fixed for 3rd November, 1987.

3. The notices as per report of the office were sent to the respondents on 3-8-1987 whereby the respondents were directed to submit the written objections upto October, 1987. The respondents neither submitted the written objections nor sent their representative to appear before this Tribunal today on 3-11-1987. The respondents this way acted in most negligent and careless manner and we have no choice but to proceed ex parte against them. It is a matter of regret that the officials in spite of the clear notice do not care to go through the contents of the notice and generally no effort is made to know the law and the rules on the point. The respondents in an appeal in this Tribunal are required to submit their objections not later than 7 days specified in the notice for hearing of appeal. The relevant provision as contained in Rule 13 of the Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rule 1975 reads as under:- "13(1) A respondent on whom a notice of appeal has been served under rule 12, may send his objections to the appeal by registered post acknowledgment due to the Registrar so as to reach him, or deliver the same to the Registrar either personally or through his advocate not later than seven days before the date specified in the notice for hearing of the appeal, or within such extended period as may be allowed by the Registrar. (2) The objections shall be legibly, correctly and concisely written, type written or printed, shall be signed by the respondent or by a person authorised by him in that behalf and shall be accompanied by a copy of every document on which the respondent wishes to rely in support of his objections. (3) The written objections, shall be accompanied by four spare copies thereof, complete in all respects, for use of the members of the Tribunal and the appellant. (4) In case objections are not received or delivered within the time allowed under sub-rule (1) the respondent may be proceeded against ex parte." While the relevant position of the notices sent to the respondents read as under:- "Whereas the appeal filed by the above named appellant has been admitted by this Tribunal for regular hearing on 3-11-1987. Now, therefore, you are directed to send your objections to the appeal as required under rule 13(4) with five spare copies by registered post. A. D. or deliver the same, either personally or through your Advocate, to the Registrar of this Tribunal on or before 3-10-1987. In case no objections are received within the time as mentioned above, you will be proceeded against ex parte as per rule 13(4) unless an extension in the period has been granted by the Registrar." These notices were sent to the respondents through post on 9-8-1987. The same have not been received back, therefore, presumption; is that the same reached the destination. Therefore, the respondents were proceeded ex parte. However after this judgment had been dictated the parawise comments were received from the respondent No.l on 16-11-1987.

4. This decision may be taken as a note of caution and notified to all the Heads of Department to take a serious view of negligence of their subordinates in dealing with the matters in the Tribunal.

5. We have heard the arguments ex parte. The grievance of the appellant is that the General Remarks cannot be allowed to stand after the amendments made in the remarks columns 5(a) and 15 by the respondent No.2. The remarks given by the respondents Nos.l and 2 are as under:- Column No.5. Respondent No.1. Respondent No . 2. (a) Investigation of crime against property. Below average. Average. Column No.15. Integrity. Controversial. Not known. General Remarks An average officer who does not enjoy very good reputation about the integrity Will stay. The same are clearly contradictory.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the remarks are very clear and there is no justification to expunge the same.

7. We have considered the arguments. The General Remarks which are bone of contention at the moment are once again reproduced here under: - "An average officer who does not enjoy very good reputation about the integrity." Now with the deletion of remarks in column No.5(al the first part that the appellant is an average officer does not require any interference because the appellant is fully satisfied by the grading done by the respondent No.2 i.e., 'Average'. The remaining portion of the remarks that the appellant does not enjoy very good reputation about the integrity' is clearly contradictory to the modification made by the respondent No.2 in column No.15 which reads as under:- Integrity. Not known. Now on the one hand in column No.15 in respect of integrity the respondent No.2 has recorded 'Not known'. On the other hand it is being remarked that the appellant does not enjoy good reputation C about the integrity. The remarks are clearly contradictory and cannot stay together being mutually negation of each other. Even otherwise the remarks that the appellant does not enjoy very reputation are vague and meaningless.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the facts of the case and we are of the clear view that the later portion of the General Remarks is contradictory to the remarks recorded in column No.15 besides being vague and meaningless. Therefore, the remarks beyond an average officer cannot be allowed to stand. and the same are hereby expunged. The remarks expunged are as under:- " .does not enjoy very good reputation about the integrity. "

9. The up shot of the discussion is that we allow this appeal and expunge the remarks as indicated above. M.Y.H./161/Sr.P Appeal, allowed.