1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ Muhammad Afzal Malik has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 19.74 in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, D.I.‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks so recorded in his A. C. R. for the year 1980 and conveyed to the appellant vide impugned order, dated 13‑1‑1982, be expunged, as being without airy lawful justification. He has also prayed that his represen tation which was rejected on 1‑8‑1982, be also quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as P.1. Sub‑Division, Sumandri District Faisalabad was given following adverse remarks for the said year:‑ (a) Sex morality .... "Controversial" This remark was conveyed to the appellant vide Memo. No. S/381/82, dated 13‑1‑1982. He submitted representation on 18‑2‑1982, which was duly considered and rejected vide order, dated 1‑8‑1982. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the observation so made by the Reporting Officer is not supported by any instance to sustain the aforesaid adverse remarks. He has also made a grievance that although these remarks were incorporated in the A.C.R. of the appellant but the same were conveyed to him vide memo., dated 13‑1‑1982. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this delay would reflect upon the justification of the said adverse entry. However, learned counsel has mainly based his case on the point of malice so alleged. Mr. Khan Zaman P.D.S.P., who according to him was annoyed with the appellant because he wanted to post one of his well‑wisher in his place. According to learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Khan Zaman was able to persuade S.P., Faisalabad Mr. Irfan Mahmood Khan to give him adverse entry against him. It has also been submitted that this S.P. was earlier well‑disposed towards the appellant. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the adverse entry has beep fully justified by the Reporting Officer and the appellant has failed to show any malice against him. It has also been submitted that there is nothing on the record to substantiate the allegation of the appellant that Mr. Khan Zaman, P.D.S.P. had some influence over the S.P., Faisalabad, who initiated the adverse entry against him. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by both the sides and find from the record that the A.C.R. of the appellant was initiated by S.P., Faisalabad Mr. Irfan Mahmood Khan and not by the P.D.S.P. We have also looked into the record of the case and find whether any documentary or oral evidence was available to make us believe that Mr. Khan Zaman, P.D.S.P. was so instrumental to get round the S.P. and make him to observe adversely against the appellant. We have also attended to the parawise comments wherein, besides the point so urged by the learned District Attorney wherein it has been stated that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to look into the matters relating to the A.C.Rs. However, we repel this argument as absolutely baseless and flimsy, keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in re Provincial Government .v. Ahmad Kamaluddin 1981 S C M R 392, wherein it has been held that this Tribunal was under obligation to look into the matter of the A. C. Rs. as such like entries in the A.C.Rs. weigh very high at the time of promotion of a civil servant. 8. After going through the entire aspect of this case we are fully satisfied that adverse entry so initiated by S.P., Faisalabad was independent exercise of his mind and the same was countersigned by the countersigning authority. We do not find any role of P.D.S.P., Khan Zaman indicated anywhere on the record to connect him with the initiating officer or to show that he bore any ill‑will or grudge against the appellant. The Reporting Officer has fully justified his stand and submitted that it was on numerous complaints received by him from time to time, that he was to make this observation which was a correct assessment of the appellant's during the year under report. 9. In view of the above we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.