1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑Masood Ahmad Khan, Prosecuting Inspector of Police; has filed an appeal for the expunction of adverse remarks recorded against him for the year 1975. He filed a representation with the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab which was rejected vide his order dated 20‑2‑1976. Government pleader raised the preliminary objection of limitation in this case as the impugned order of the Inspector‑General of Police, is dated 24‑2‑1976 and the appeal in the Tribunal was filed on 12‑6‑1978. The contention of the appellant is that the impugned order i.e. the Annual Confidential Report for 1975 was based on the Censures communicated to him by the Superintendent of Police and that these Censures were set aside by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police only as recently on 23‑9‑1976. Since the basis of the AOR in question has disappeared with the setting aside of those Censures, he could only now file the appeal. An application for the condonation of delay has been filed and is, in the circumstances, explained by the appellant, accepted. Masood Ahmad Khan, P. I. Police was posted to Mandi Bahaud Din on 15‑8‑1975. The AOR in question relates to the period from 15‑8‑1975 to 31‑12‑1975. S. P. Gujrat recorded the following remarks: Class of report. C Rating as Prosecuting Inspector. Below Average' Readiness to accept responsibilities. Below Average' Readiness to expose subordinates. Below Average' Integrity. Controversial "Easy going and is too soft. Did not impress me as a prosecutor. He is a man of negative approach. Neither fair nor prompt in departmental and other miscellaneous enquiries. He has no independent opinion, is rather spasmodic." During the same period two enquiries regarding Sub‑Inspector Mehrban All Sub‑Inspector Sikandar Hayat were entrusted to Masood Ahmad Khan. He and exonerated them as there was no evidence against them. The contention of the appellant is that he acted contrary to the wishes of S. P. who wanted to punish the two Sub‑Inspectors in these two cases. The result was that the S. P. got annoyed and the appellant was censured in these two cases. The record produced by the Department has been perused as it appears from the record that the S. P. did actually get annoyed in the matter of the two enquiries. Since the basis on which the A. O. R. of the appellant has been recorded has disappeared with the setting aside of the orders of Censure by D. I.‑G. the appeal of the appellant regarding the adverse remarks must succeed. The appeal is accepted and the adverse remarks for the year 1975 recorded by the S. P. are hereby expunged. Petition accepted.