1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK ZAWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER). ‑‑Muhammad Nazir, A.S.I., No.247, Police Station, Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad has filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad as respondents. Hence the subject‑matter and the issues involved in these appeals are identical, so these are being disposed off simultaneously by a single judgment.

3. By virute of Appeal No.348/262 of 1983, the appellant has prayed that the order dated 30‑6‑1983, be set aside and the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the year 1977, be expunged. In the Appeal No.347/261 of 1983, he has prayed that the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the period from 1‑1‑1978 to 26‑8‑1978 be expunged and the order rejecting his representation dated 30‑6‑1983 be set aside.

3. Brief facts leading to the preferring of these appeals are that while the appellant was serving as an A. S. I. his work and conduct was reported upon by the Reporting Officer. He was conveyed the following adverse remarks pertaining to the year 1977 which are reproduced hereunder:‑ "12(a) Readiness to accept Below average. responsibility. (b) Readiness to expose Below average. subordinates.

18. General Remarks:‑ He did not perform his duty diligently and efficiently. In Appeal No.347/261 of 1983, he was conveyed the following adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1978 to 26‑9‑1978 vide letter dated 31‑7‑1979:‑ "

15. Integrity Controversial.

18. General Remarks. He is over‑clever and not dependable Police Officer." The appellant submitted two separate representations for the expunction of the adverse remarks which remained pending with the competent authority for a considerable time till 30‑6‑1983 when those were rejected. Hence these appeals.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that during the period from 5‑6‑1977 to 31‑12‑1977, appellant's performance as an Investigator in criminal cases was excellent and that there was no complaint whatsoever against him regarding his work and conduct either from the public or his superior officers. It has further been argued that during this period he was recommended for accelerated promotion to List 'E' vide letter dated 5‑7‑1977 by his immediate superior officer. He was also commended by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad vide Certificate dated 23‑2‑1978. In the other appeal it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that these remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1978 to 26‑8‑1978 are vague and general in nature and are not supported by any specific instance. He has adopted the arguments advanced by him in appeal regarding adverse remarks for the year 1977.

5. On the other hand these arguments have been controverted by the learned District Attorney. He has submitted that the Reporting Officer vide his letter dated 30‑4‑1980 has fully substantiated the adverse remarks in question. He has also argued that the S.H.O. was not competent to make the recommendation for entry of his name in List 'E'. The recommendations so made by S.H.O. in favour of the appellant were not accepted by the competent authority. He has concluded that the adverse remarks have been fully substantiated by the comments of the Reporting Officer Mr. S. Karar Hussain, D.S.P. , Qurban Lines, Lahore and that these appeals are liable to be dismissed.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. From the perusal of the comments of the Reporting Officer, we find that he has given the comments on the representation of the appellant, according to his memory and recollection. It means that he did not consult the record or that it was not available to him. We are afraid that this sort of attitude on behalf of the Reporting Officer to give the comments according to the memories is very dangerous as it may lead to serious consequences. 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 Diary 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. It will not out of place for us to mention here that the appellant was dismissed from service on the charge of corruption pertaining to the said period but he was reinstated by this Tribunal. This point has not been controverted by the respondents. Since the remarks regarding corruption were a subject‑matter of an enquiry which resulted in his dismissal and subsequent reinstatement by this Tribunal so we hold that the said remarks should have been washed off by the Department itself. In view of the above analysis we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated 30‑6‑1983 and direct that the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. for the years 1977 and 1978 be expunged. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./171/Sr.P Appeal accepted.