1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant, Muhammad Sadiq, Police Inspector has filed this appeal against the adverse remarks recorded in his confidential report for the period 1‑1‑1988 to 30‑6‑1988 by the countersigning officer/DIG, Lahore Range/respondent No.2. His representation against these remarks was rejected by the IGP/respondent No.3 vide his order dated 2‑6‑1990.

2. We have heard both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned adverse remarks on the following grounds: (i) The reporting officer/SP, Kasur/respondent No.1 had, given him good/very good remarks in all the columns of the report wherein he rated him as A‑I, declared him fit for promotion and classified the report as A‑I but respondent No.2 while agreeing with the A‑I rating in Part IV of the report did not endorse the appellant's rating of the same kind in Parts II and III. This was illogical because, rating in Part IV was mainly based on the rating in Parts II and III. (ii) The general remarks recorded by countersigning officer were actually based on one incident which was formally enquired into and as a result of this enquiry the appellant was eventually exonerated of all the charges. The enquiry was finalised and the appellant exonerated of the charges in 1990 but the countersigning officer recorded these remarks in 1988 without even awaiting the outcome of the enquiry which was against rules. (iii) The adverse remarks are not consistent with the previous satisfactorily/good remarks given by the same countersigning officer in the confidential reports for 1987, 1‑7‑1988 to 5‑10‑1988. 6‑2‑1989 to 13‑5‑1989 and 3‑9‑1989 to 9‑12‑1989. This shows that the countersigning officer gave him positive reports not only for the periods preceding the impugned report but also for the periods following it. Thus in the face of the successive good reports given by the same countersigning officer the impugned adverse remarks given by him for a short period of six months in 1988 are out of tune with the rest of the reports and not based on an objective assessment of the work and conduct of the appellant. (iv) Inefficiency and integrity are permanent aspects of character of a civil servant which do not register abrupt changes. The views recorded by the same officer in this behalf in the impugned report do not conform to this universal truth. (v) The impugned remarks are not consistent with the appreciations recorded by the countersigning officer himself in connection with a number of good jobs done by the appellant. For his services and the good work done; he was awarded 7 commendation certificates between 6‑2‑1988 and 20‑6‑1988 and was given a total of Rs.28,000 as reward during this brief period. (vi) As regards the remarks of mixing up with criminals, the same were the subject of two enquiries which ultimately resulted in the appellant's exoneration earlier in 1990. These‑ remarks were, therefore, premature. (vii) The remarks that most of the appellant's detection and recoveries were fake are contradictory to the facts and figures shown in Part IV. In any case, the rating of A‑I given by the reporting officer to the appellant in Part IV has not been changed by the countersigning officer. These adverse remarks are, therefore, without any basis. (viii) The adverse remarks regarding devotion to duty and behaviour with public and morality are not in consonance with those given by the same countersigning officer in the reports which preceded and followed the impugned report and these too are, therefore, without any basis. (ix) No counselling or warning was given to the appellant during this period which goes to show that no such necessity was felt either by the reporting officer or by the countersigning officer.

3. The learned District Attorney submitted that the impugned adverse remarks of the countersigning officer were based on his personal observation of the work and conduct of the appellant and were recorded after forming his own independent opinion. It was not necessary that the Countersigning Officer must agree with the assessment made by the reporting officer. He prayed that the appeal was without any merit and be dismissed.

4. No arguments are needed to accept the position that there is obvious contradiction in the remarks, recorded by the Countersigning Officer after accepting the figures in Part IV of the report as also the rating of A‑I given to the appellant by the reporting officer. If we judge his performance on the basis of these figures it would neither be reasonable nor fair to consider the appellant inefficient or dishonest. When we compare these adverse remarks with the remarks earlier recorded by the countersigning officer preceding this report as also those following it, the contradiction becomes too obvious. Lack objectivity in recording of these remarks is too apparent to be overlooked. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and reported as 1990 PLC 111 and 1983 PLC (C.S) 303 are the cases in point which lend support to the view that efficiency and integrity are aspects of character which do not admit of abrupt change. In the case of the appellant the impugned remarks against his integrity were premature as these were recorded without awaiting the final outcome of the formal enquiry which was being conducted against him. These remarks proved to be unfounded because eventually the appellant was exonerated of the charges on which these remarks were based.

5. Although in the Police Department rewards and punishments go side by side yet the details provided by the appellant of the commendable work done by him during this short period of 6 months for which he was not only given commendation certificate but was also paid a total of Rs.28,000 as reward speak very high of the appellant's devotion to duty, his commendable work in connection with detection and recoveries etc.

6. The adverse remarks regarding mixing up with criminals, lack of devotion to duty, undesirable behaviour with public etc. have successfully been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant to which the learned District Attorney and the departmental representatives had little to say to controvert the same. No evidence was produced before this Tribunal to show whether any counselling or warning was given to the appellant during this period.

7. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the appellant has not been given a fair deal by the countersigning officer. The impugned remarks were either not based on facts or were premature which were later found to be baseless. Since the overall assessment for fitness for promotion and classification of the report was based on the detailed assessment made by the countersigning officer in the various parts of the report, which have successfully been controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the abovementioned adverse remarks regarding fitness and classification given by the countersigning officer in this behalf are also not fair. We, therefore, proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks be expunged. There are no orders as to costs. H.B.T./464/Sr.P Appeal accepted.