1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

His representation against tile above remarks for expunction was also rejected b` Respondent No. 2/D.1. -G. Police, Lahore. Hence this appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.

2. Counsel for the parties have been heard and relevant record, especially the Character Roll of the appellant, consulted. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appeal be accepted inter alia on the following grounds: (a) The adverse remarks were based on a departmental enquiry, which was then pending. The appellant was later found innocent. Respondents should have awaited the outcome of the enquiry before recording the above remarks regarding the appellant's integrity; (b) The other remarks regarding the appellant's personality are uncalled for as he could have no hand in shaping his personality. Appearance of a man is the creation of Allah. The appellant has earned over 70 commendatory certificates with the same bulky, lazy and unimpressive physique. (c) The past record of the appellant is blotless.

3. The learned District Attorney rebutted the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and insisted that although the appellant had been exonerated in the aforesaid departmental enquiry on charges of corruption but it was the result of social influence brought about by the appellant on the witnesses and that at the initial stage the allegations were supported by the complainant party which had no enmity or ill-will against the appellant. He further submitted that whatever be the appearance of a man he should be able to maintain his fitness especially if he is serving as a Police Officer.

4. The appellant was appointed as A.S.I. in 1971 and ever since he has not earned even a single adverse remark against his integrity except the impugned one for the period 12-9-1985 to 31-12-1985. In the 24 confidential reports earned by him during the period 1971-1988 he has throughout been considered honest. It is thus evident that the adverse remarks about his integrity had been based on the departmental enquiry alone which had been initiated against him on the charge of corruption. Since this charge could not be established he was exonerated of the allegation by respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 24-3-1980 i.e. after the impugned adverse entries for the period 12-9-1985 to 31-12-1985 had been' recorded. It is, therefore, surprising that the D.I.-G. Lahore/respondent No. 2 in his capacity as Appellate Authority rejected the appellant's representation against the aforesaid adverse remarks vide his order dated 15-1-X987 despite the fact that the departmental enquiry had already been finalised and the appellant exonerated in March, 1986. The anomaly becomes all the more prominent when one finds that he had based his decision squarely on the aforesaid departmental enquiry. In his aforesaid order dated 1.5-1-1987 he had stated that "integrity of the appellant was graded controversial because of the departmental enquiry conducted against him on the charge of corruption Similarly, the General Remarks regarding his weakness to financial temptations were based on the same departmental enquiry being conducted against him for corruption. I, therefore, think there is no force in appeal which is dismissed." This kind of reasoning could only be due to the fact that even at that late stage respondent No. 2 was blissfully ignorant of the fact that the enquiry had already been finalised and the appellant exonerated. Since the impugned remarks about the integrity of the officer were admittedly based on a departmental enquiry in which he had been exonerated as also the fact that the phrase 'controversial' is in itself a vague remark and furthermore because this is the only `adverse' report conveyed to the officer regarding his integrity, though uncorroborated by any evidence, these remarks are unfounded and uncalled for. As a natural corollary the classification of the report as `C' is also unjustified.

5. As regards the other remarks about the general turn out and personality of the appellant, the line of argument that it is something God given and he had no control over it is not tenable. The learned District Attorney is quite right when he says that to remain fit and smart is within every body's power and it becomes all the more incumbent on a person who is serving in a disciplined force like the police where fitness is not an added quality but a basic qualification.

6. The result is that the appeal is accepted in the aforementioned terms and the following remarks in the Confidential Report of the appellant for the period 12-9-1985 to 31-12-1985 are hereby expunged: "(15) Integrity Controversial (17) Class of Report 'C" (18) General Remarks: Prone to temptation. Department enquiry on the charge of corruption pending with the D.S.P. (Legal)."

7. The following remarks are, however, not to be expunged: (16) General turn out and personality Poor (18) General Remarks: Bulky, lazy and unimpressive. There are no orders as to costs. M.Y.H./333/Sr. P Appeal partly allowed.