1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑‑Muhammad Yar, Sub- Inspector, Police Line, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab, through Secretary, Home Department, Lahore, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1981 to 4‑10‑1981 and for the year 1983 be expunged and the orders, dated 5‑8‑1984 and 20‑1‑1985 of respondent No. 2 also be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1981 to 4‑10‑1981 as follows:‑ "

4. Departmental enquiry instituted against him during the year. Nature of allegations and result. While posted at Police Station Rajana he alongwith Constable Umar Hayat No. 1712 visited Chak No.291/CB, on 18‑7‑1981 in connection with a complaint against Muhammad Arif son of Mansib Ali, Depot Holder for indulging in black‑marketing of sugar. He was kept under illegal confinement at the Police Station and the Sub Inspector coerced him to extort money from him. Consequently the Sub‑Inspector obtained Rs.500 from him as bribe through Constable and released him without action. Having been found guilty of the charge was dismissed from service, vide order No.2101/ ST, dated 4‑10‑1981. 5. (a) Investigation of crime against property. Below average. (b) Preventive action, under local and special laws. Below average. 12(a) Readiness to accept responsibility. Below average. (b) Readiness to expose sub‑ordinates. Below average.

15. Integrity. Corrupt.

19. Class of report. C

20. General Remarks. A corrupt officer who was dismissed from service." Out of these remarks the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, vide his order, dated 20‑1‑1985 sustained the remarks against column Nos. 4, 5(a), 15, 19 and

20. However, the adverse remarks against column Nos. 5(b), 12(a) and 12(b) were expunged. Similarly the appellant was conveyed the adverse remarks for the year 1983, vide order, dated 5‑8‑1984 of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad as follows:‑ "

4. Departmental enquiry initiated against him during the year. Nature of allegation and result. Awarded punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service, vide OB No.1033/83." Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. M.A. Aziz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the respondent.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as far as the adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1981 to 4‑10‑1981 are concerned some of these adverse remarks were expunged and other were retained by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad, vide order, dated 20‑1‑1985. He has submitted that this order is based on misunderstanding and full mind has not been applied by the learned Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad when he had passed the above impugned order. As far as the remarks against column No. 4, are concerned, these cannot be sustained in view of the fact, as the dismissal of the appellant was set aside by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, vide his order, dated 10‑4‑1982 (Annexure 'A') through which the appellant was re‑instated in service and de novo proceedings were ordered. On this the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad vide order, dated 4‑9‑1983 did cot hold the appellant guilty of receiving Rs.500 as illegal gratification and awarded minor punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service, Furthermore the charge of 'Corruption' was not proved against the appellant as is clear from the impugned order, dated 4‑9‑1983 of the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. Hence the adverse remarks against column Nos.15, 19 and 20, respectively which were affecting as a result of his dismissal for accepting the bribe of Rs.500 cannot be sustained. As far as investigation of crime against property 'Below average' (column No. 5(a), this has also been recorded arbitrarily because the appellant did not hold an independent charge but he was under training‑'D' Course and remained attached at various police Stations for his training only, as follows:‑ (1) 1‑1‑1981 to 19‑6‑1981 Police Station, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad. (2) 20‑6‑1981 to 28‑7‑1981 Police Station, Rajana. (3) 4‑8‑1981 to 3‑10‑1981. Police Station, Jaranwala. (4) 4‑8‑1981 to 4‑10‑1981. Under suspension. On the face of above record, as the appellant was not an independent investigating Officer, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the remarks against column No. 5(a) have been recorded without applying full mind and are thus rudimentary. The appellant's counsel has submitted that keeping in view the above justification the adverse remarks sustained by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, vide his order, dated 20‑1‑1985 against column Nos. 4, 5(a), 15, 19 and 20 cannot be retained and be expunged.

5. As far as the remarks for the year 1983 are concerned these are as a result of punishment awarded for forfeiture of one year approved service by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, vide his order, dated 4‑9‑1983. Keeping this factual position in view the appellant's counsel agreed that these remarks are correct and are based on above order of the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad.

7. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the remarks given by the respondents in the A.C.Rs of the years 1981 and 1983 have been fully justified by them and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. The record shows that the adverse remarks for the year 1983 are based on facts and are as a result of the order, dated 4‑9‑1983 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. Thus these adverse remarks are sustained. As far as the adverse remarks for the period 1‑1‑1981 to 4‑10‑1981 are concerned, we observe as under:‑ The remarks recorded against column No. 4, do not stand any more as the dismissal order, dated 4‑10‑1981 was set aside by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, himself, vide his order, dated 10‑4‑1982. The appellant was re‑instated and de novo proceedings were ordered against ‑the appellant. On this the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, vide order, dated 4‑9‑1983 awarded only minor penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service. It is also worth‑mentioning that through this order, the appellant was not held guilty of accepting of Rs.500 as illegal gratification as it was not proved against the appellant. Hence we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks against column Nos. 15, 19 and 20 which were originated on the basis of corruption charge cannot be sustained as ultimately charge of corruption was not proved as mentioned above. For adverse remarks against column No. 5(a), Investigation of crime against property, we also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was under‑training at different Police Stations and he was not an independent Investigating Officer. The remarks against this column had also been recorded by the Reporting Officer without applying due mind.

9. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the impugned order, dated 20‑1‑1985 of respondent No. 2 is set aside and the adverse remarks for the period 1‑1‑1981 to 4‑10‑1981 are expunged. As far as the remarks for the year 1983 are concerned, these will stand and the impugned order, dated 5‑8‑1984 of respondent No. 2 is also maintained. A. E. Orders accordingly.