1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Column 1982 1983 1984 5(b) Prevention action and action under local and Special laws. Blank Blank Below average 14(b) Relations with colleagues. Good Good Bad

15. Integrity Honest Honest Controversial.

7. The general remarks given by the reporting officer in the ACRs of 1982 and 1983 were also quite favourable to the appellant whereas in 1984 the appellant somehow lost favour with the reporting officer who gave him adverse general remarks. It is simply intriguing to find that a person who was considered honest, neat and clean in his habits and who had been taking keen interest in his professional work and duties during the previous two years should now be doing "little to carry out his duties efficiently". The reporting officer found him as having "neat and clean habits in 1982 but in 1984 he considered that the was artful in anything except in lying and exaggerating things.

8. This sudden transition from one extreme to another and steep fall in the standard and quality of work and conduct of the appellant being against human nature is not understandable particularly when we find that the reports which he received after the impugned report are also satisfactory. In the circumstances, the allegation of malice attributed by the appellant against the reporting officer does not seem to be without substance.

9. Some of the remarks given under the heading `general remarks' are contrary to and inconsistent with the remarks given in the specific columns. For example in the general remarks it has been stated that the appellant is not fit to 'hold the charge of a police station whereas in column No. 6 (Rating as SHO) he has been graded as average. In the general remarks it has beer remarked that the appellant lacked the art of public dealing whereas in column 14 (Relations with public) the relations have been rated as tolerable. Some other remarks such as an officer who talked and boasted much but did little to carry out his duties efficiently. He is a tactless officer who earned the ill-will of his immediate officer as well as his juniors are remarks which could not be substantiated by the respondents during the course of proceedings before this Tribunal. Not a single incident could be cited by them in support of these remarks. In the parawise by the reporting officer it has been stated that he had called appellant which could be checked from the office record yet no documentary evidence was adduced in support of the charge Similarly, the respondents have failed to bring forth any proof in support of the remark that preventive action and, action under local and special laws taken by the appellant during the period under report was below average. The remarks are evidently based on conjectures and surmises.

10. The integrity of the appellant has been rated as `controversial' by the reporting officer. In support of the remark the reporting officer has stated that the S.P. of the district is the best person to judge the reputation of an officer working under him. No documentary or eye-witness account is required to adjudge the officer's integrity in the ACR". He has further stated that "there was a general complaint of his being an officer of ill-repute". This is plain admission of the fact that the reporting officer had no credible evidence or material to doubt the integrity of the appellant and the remark is, therefore, without any basis.

11. As some of the general remarks are inconsistent with the remarks in the specified columns or are vague and not based on any record or positive evidence and since the same reporting officer had given him two good reports consecutively immediately preceding the impugned report and the sudden fall in the performance and conduct of the appellant could not be explained or substantiated, we proceed to accept the appeal and direct that the adverse remarks in the confidential report of the appellant for the period 16-2-1984 to 6-12-1984 be expunged. There are no orders as to costs. M.Y.H./337/Sr. P Appeal accepted.