1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Tauqir Hayat, Inspector/ S.H.0. , Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the D .I. G . Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi and the Inspector‑‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remark for the year 1982 be expunged and the impugned orders dated 22‑10‑1983 and 28‑1‑1984/9‑2‑1984 be set aside. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was communicated the following adverse remark vide order dated 22‑10‑1983 by Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore (Annexure 'A'):‑ "Integrity ‑"Controversial". The appellant made a representation against this remark to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was considered and rejected by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 28‑1‑1984, conveyed to the appellant on 9‑2‑1984. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e. Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi has submitted his parawise comments, who has not given any justification to support the above remark so given by him in the A.C.R. of the appellant for the year 1982. The comments offered by the Reporting Officer are general in nature and he has not quoted any specific instance to justify the remark so given by him. It has been pointed out by the appellant's counsel that there was no complaint whatsoever against the appellant during this period regarding his integrity and he was given commendation certificate for his good work during the year under report by his superior. It has been argued by the appellant's counsel that this remark is vague, general in nature and has not been supported by any specific instance, be expunged from the A.C.R. of the appellant. He has also relied on the common judgment of this Tribunal in Case No.347/261 of 1983 and Case No.348/262 of 1983 decided on 24‑12‑1983 in case of Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and another. He has submitted that this case is at all fours with the above judgment of the Tribunal and the adverse remark of the appellant be expunged keeping that decision in view.

6. The learned District Attorney has relied in extenso on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that lot of complaints about his integrity were brought to the notice of D.I.G./RR and the appellant was reprimanded time and again but he could not improve his conduct. Thus, there were adequate basis for recording of this adverse remark against the appellant, which is fully justified, is liable to be maintained and the appeal be dismissed.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parries. To adjudicate the cases of adverse remarks given in the A.C.R. of the civil servants, this Tribunal has adopted the practice of calling upon the Reporting officers concerned to justify their remarks by giving specific instances or facts and figures in support of adverse remarks. In cases where the Reporting Officers concerned justify the adverse remarks by giving specific instances or facts and figures, in such cases this Tribunal does not interfere with the adverse remarks. However, where the Reporting Officer is not in a position to justify his remarks, in that case of course it is concluded by this Tribunal that the remarks are arbitrary. This is also quite consistent with the Government instructions as well as the Standing Order No.32 issued by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore with regard to the writing of A. C. R. and communication of adverse remarks. I have perused the parawise comments submitted by the Reporting Officer i.e. Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi which are reproduced as below:‑ "A lot of complaints about his integrity were brought to the notice of D.I. G. /RR and officer was reprimanded time and again, but he could not improve his conduct. D.I.G./RR had to ask him to explain his conduct on different occasions for inefficiency and misconduct. He was also warned to remain careful in this regard by SSP/Rawalpindi but the officer failed to show any improvement. D.I.G./RR while recording his ACR 1983 (1982) marked his integrity as controversial on the basis of several complaints about his integrity. These remarks were conveyed to the officer on 22‑10‑1983." The above comments of the D.I.G., Reporting Officer, did not mention any specific instance but contain a general statement. I have called the service record of the appellant to assess the working of the appellant during the year 1982 in order to see whether the above comments are consistent with the service record of the appellant or not. His personal file shows that a show‑cause notice was served to the appellant on 14‑2‑1982 as he failed to inform the SSP about the firing which took place at Chungi No.2 in the evening of 13‑2‑1982. The explanation was submitted by the appellant and this show‑cause notice issued to the appellant was filed by S.S.P., Rawalpindi vide his order dated 7‑4‑1982, as the responsibility of not conveying the above information had been fixed on S.I. Nazar Hussain No.19/R and he had already been closed to Police Lines. Another order was passed on 27‑5‑1982, by S.S.P. Rawalpindi for vacation of another show‑cause notice but this pertained to the Case F.I.R. No.373 dated 3‑7‑1979 i.e. for the year 1979 and had no relevancy with his working for the year 1982. There is another order OB‑596 dated 6‑11‑1982 passed by S.S.P., Rawalpindi. This matter related to a show‑cause notice served regarding his failure about submission of returns about proclaimed offenders, military deserters and absconders of MLR

31. In this order the S. S. P. held as follows:‑ "After going through the reply of the defaulter and hearing him at length, I am of the view that returns could not be submitted in time due to the short period.' However, he is WARNED TO BE CAREFUL IN FUTURE." There is nothing on record to show that during the year 1982, any complaint against his integrity was received, any explanation regarding his integrity was called for or any other action was taken against him on this account. On the other hand the service roll of the appellant shows that he was granted a Class‑III Certificate in recognition of good work done in case F.I.R. dated 14‑12‑1980 vide OB.45/82 dated 25‑1‑1982, with cash reward of Rs.100. He was also granted a Class‑III Certificate in recognition of his performing duty efficiently during the visit of President of Pakistan at Islamabad vide OB.326/82 dated 9‑6‑1982 with cash reward. He was also granted a Class‑III Certificate in recognition of good work done during the inspection vide OB.635/82 dated 30‑11‑1982, with cash reward of l Rs.200.

8. I have also perused the entire A.C.R. dossiers of the appellant from the start of his service i.e. from the year ending 1968 to the year ending 1982 (the year in which the appellant has been awarded the above adverse remark), I find that nowhere, the integrity of the appellant had been doubted except this entry of the year 1982.

9. The above history and record of the case shows that the adverse remarks, regarding integrity as "controversial" for the year 1982, have been recorded by the D.I.G. on the basis of some mis‑understanding and nothing is there on record to prove the same. This fact cannot also be ignored that while initiating the report for the year 1982, his Reporting Officer i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi described him as an honest Officer, but the D.I.G. changed this entry as "controversial"

10. I have also gone through the judgment of this Tribunal given in the case of Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police Faisalabad and another so relied upon in Para 5 of this judgment by the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that it is fully applicable in the present case as well. The relevant portion of that judgment is reproduced as below:‑ "The Reporting Officers have time and again been reminded by the Government to record the adverse remarks very carefully and to maintain a book for recording certain instances reflecting upon the work and conduct of the civil servants. The respondents have not been able to produce any record to show that the integrity of the appellant was controversial or that his performance as a Police Officer was sub‑standard. Had any complaints been received from the public and other quarters by the Superintendent of Police or his superior Officer, it could easily have been produced before us to prove that the integrity of the appellant was controversial or that his performance was not up to the mark. Mr. S. Karar Hussain, D.S.P. was his Circle Officer and he was expected to know the worth of the appellant and was fully competent to give an impartial opinion regarding the work and conduct of the appellant. According to the rules, the investigation of the cases conducted by the appellant was to be verified by the said Circle Officer. Had the said Reporting Officer found the investigation of the cases sub‑standard, it was his bounden duty to record the case Dairy to that effect. He was also at liberty to issue him a warning from time to time. The respondents have not shown us any record showing issuance of such warning or any other files of the cases as stated above to. prove the contention of the Reporting Officer. Thus, we hold that the said Reporting Officer has not been able to substantiate the remarks recorded by him."

11. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the adverse remarks (Integrity‑ "Controversial") conveyed to the appellant for the year 1982 vide Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore letter dated 22‑10‑1983arenot justified, cannot be sustained and are expunged. Thus, the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. There are no orders as to costs. M.Y.H. /172/Sr.P Appeal accepted