1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Noor Khan, Sub‑Inspector No. 192/A, Rawalpindi District, has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi and Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi, as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks for the year 1986 be expunged and orders dated 26‑2‑1987 and 14‑6‑1988 passed by the respondents be set aside.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was conveyed following adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1986, by letter dated 26‑2‑1987:‑‑ "Integrity: Controversial". The appellant filed representation before respondent No. 2, which was rejected vide order dated 14‑6‑1988, hence this appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the service record of the appellant so produced before me with the assistance of the representative of the Department.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. of the appellant for the year 1986 are quite vague and against the spirit of the instructions set forth for writing of ACRs. He has further submitted that the remarks are not supported by any cogent and material evidence available on record. Learned District Attorney strongly contested the plea so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the remarks are fully justified and may be allowed to stand on the ACR of the appellant.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the rt parties and find that there is nothing on record to support the remarks so recorded by the Reporting Officer. It has been clearly laid down in the Instructions for writing ACRs as reproduced below, that the Reporting Officer should be in a position to justify the same on the basis of material evidence readily available on record:‑ "30‑‑ Manner of writing he reports: The opinion expressed should be the result of careful consideration, no personal bias, ire, or favouritism should colour the report. The Reporting Officer should be in a position to justify his views, if called upon, to do so." The record so produced before me is silent and not an iota of evidence is there which justifies the retention of the impugned remarks. I am least impressed by the justification given by the Reporting Officer as well as in the parawise comments of the Respondents. The appellant was never warned about his controversial integrity. On careful perusal of the facts of the case I am of the considered view that the remarks conveyed to the appellant are vague and general in nature and the same are liable to be expunged.

6. In the light of the above discussion I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the impugned adverse remarks recorded in the, ACR of the appellant be expunged. There is no order as to costs. M.Y.H./278/Sr.P Appeal allowed