1987 PLP 904 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 17th February, 1987. DAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑Leave to appeal is being sought against order, dated 23rd November, 1985 of the North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunal. The petitioner is a Prosecuting Sub‑Inspector in the Police Department of N.‑W.F.P. While he was posted in Mansehra, in his confidential report for the year 1983 the following adverse remarks were recorded:‑‑-- "Did not take interest in his job. On being posted as P.S.I. Bhattagram did not report for duty, took medical leave till was forced to do so. Is not loyal to his Department. Should be weeded out of service." Thereupon the petitioner filed representations for the expunction of the aforesaid remarks before Deputy Inspector‑General of Police as well as Inspector‑General of Police but these were rejected. Eventually he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal praying for the expunction of these remarks. The Service Tribunal after hearing the parties concerned held that the following portion of the adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner were not justified: "Did not take interest in his job. Is not loyal to his Department. Should be weeded out of service." The Service Tribunal, therefore, expunged the aforementioned adverse remarks from the confidential report of the petitioner. But so far as the remaining portion of the remarks:‑‑ "On being posted as P.S.I. Bhattagram did not report for duty, took medical leave till was forced to do so"‑‑ was concerned, this was not expunged, as the Service Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner was not pleased with his transfer to Bhattagram and took leave again and again on medical grounds for getting rid of the station. The petitioner appearing in person before us contended that there was no justification on the part of the Service Tribunal to allow the above stated portion of the adverse remarks to remain in his confidential report. It was submitted that the Service Tribunal had no grounds to hold that the petitioner was not pleased with his transfer or that he took leave again and again on medical grounds for getting rid of the station when it was observed in its own order that the petitioner took over charge at Bhattagram on 11th March, 1982. He remained posted there until he fell ill after about two months and had applied for medical leave from 31st May, 1982 to 2nd August, 1982 which was sanctioned. He then resumed duty on 3rd August, 1982 but after about two months again fell ill and applied for medical leave from 14th October, 1982 to 13th November, 1982 which was also sanctioned. He again resumed duty on 14th November, 1982 and then after a month applied for medical leave from 6th December, 1982 to 5th January, 1983 which was sanctioned. Then he resumed duty again on 6th January, 1983 and after remaining there for four months was transferred back to Mansehra on 3rd May, 1983 where he was posted until 6th January, 1985 when he was transferred to Abbottabad. The petitioner contended that in the light of these observations the remarks to the effect that: on being posted as P.S.I. Bhattagram he did not report for duty and took medical leave till he was forced to do so, were not justified. He further submitted that he had reported for duty at Bhattagram and if he had applied for medical leave on the ground of his illness it had been sanctioned in every case. In these circumstances the remaining portion of the adverse remarks should have also been expunged and there was no justification on the part of the Service Tribunal to allow them to remain in his confidential report. We have considered the arguments of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observations made in the impugned order. There appears to be an inconsistency in the impugned order. The petitioner had reported for duty at Bhattagram and thereafter every time leave had been sanctioned to him on medical grounds. In this background the question of letting the objectionable portion of the adverse remarks remain on the confidential report of the petitioner requires further examination. We accordingly grant leave. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file any additional documents, if necessary. M.I./A‑26/S Leave granted.