1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned letter dated 26-4-1984 and final order dated 9-4-1985/16-11-1985, be set aside and the adverse remarks in question be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case arc that the appellant was conveyed through letter dated 2(i-4-198.1 that for the year 1983, he has been adversely' assessed by the Reporting Officer. The appellant filed representation dated 7-6-1984, for expunction of the Said remarks, in which he has submitted that the remarks were nothing but an act of malice of Mr. Sibtul Hassan, Supreintendent of Police, who was biased against the appellant. The reason given by him in his representation was that the very officer had given him adverse reports for the years 1981 and 1982, which were conveyed to him vide letter dated 2-11-1982 and 22-4-1983, respectively but on representations so made by him, were expunged vide order dated 10-9-1985. He pointed out to the learned Inspector-General of Police Punjab, that according to the revised Standing Order No. 32, regarding A.C.Rs. it .was necessary that when the same Reporting Officer had already given two successive bad reports of 1981 and 1982, to the appellant then the appellant should have been placed under another Reporting Officer. The representation of the appellant was rejected by final order dated 9-4-1985. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Mr. Sibtul Hassan, S.P./Dy. Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment gave adverse remarks to the appellant for the years 1981 and 1982, in two successive years and the same were expunged vide order dated 10-9-1985, placed on file Annexure `G', by the learned I.-G. Police, Punjab. It has been vehemently argued that according to the revised Standing Order No. 32, it was necessary for the said Reporting Officer who had given already two adverse reports to the appellant, the appellant should have been assessed by another Reporting Officer. It was submitted that the appellant made a request for his repatriation from Anti-Corruption Establishment to his parent Department but in spite of the above-mentioned provisions of mandatory transfer the appellant was not repatriated. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if the appellant was at all a useless and undesirable officer, then it was necessary that the Reporting Officer should have got rid of the appellant. Besides this legal point learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the details given by him in the appeal to show that all these remarks were incorrect and appellant's work was quite satisfactory according to the figures so made available on record. He has also given the instance of malice against the Reporting Officer by submitting that although the appellant took over on 14-9-1912 and cleared the pending cases/enquiries which were brought down from 128 to 31 and the improvement was admitted in the Inspection Note dated 15-3-1983, yet the A.C.R. on appellant's working contained adverse remarks. This would show that Reporting Officer teas out to damage his career once for all. He has quoted another act of malice that during the year 1981, the period of appellant's posting was less than 3 months yet the Reporting Officer recorded adverse remarks although he was not competent to give the said report. He has cited number of persons M/s Muhammad Saleem Toor, Taxation Officer, Municipal Corporation, Sialkot Ch. Muhammad Yousaf, Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Daska, Haji Zahoor Ilahi, Shop No. 1, Sabzi Mandi, Sialkot Munir Ahmad, Head Constable, Reader to Inspector C.I.A., Sialkot City and Malik Muhammad Suleman, Superintendent, G.T.S. Nizam Din Street, Chowk Ashiq Abad, Shah Kamal Colony, Ichhra. Lahore to show that for his transfer from Lahore, Sialkot and Kasur, the Deputy Director tried his level best to give appellant punishment and made adverse assessment against him.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney while conceding the legal point that according to revised Standing Order No. 32 about A.C.Rs. it was incumbent that the appellant should not have been allowed to be assessed by the officer who had already given him two successive bad reports, he has submitted that whatever it may be, the appellant's conduct has been assessed with objectivity and the same be accepted as correct.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and without going into the merits of the case at length, what we find is that according to the revised Standing Order No. 32, regarding A.C.Rs. it was A incumbent that when same Reporting Officer had given two successive bad reports to the appellant, then the appellant should have been placed before another Reporting Officer. "

17. Action in case of recording adverse remarks by same Reporting Officer for two successive years: In order to guard against personal likes and dislikes an officer receiving adverse remarks for two successive years from the same Reporting Officer should be placed under another Reporting Officer:' In view of the above, it was necessary on the part of the authorities concerned to place the appellant under another Reporting Officer to save the appellant from dislikes of Mr. Sibtul Hassan, S.P./Dy. Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment. Besides this mandatory instruction on the subject, we cannot remain oblivious of the trait of human nature, its is established on record that earlier adverse assessments made by Mr. Sibtul Hassan, S.P., were struck down by the learned I. G. Police, Punjab himself and remarks stood expunged, this very fact would be sufficient to give sufficient annoyance to conscious or sub-conscious mind of the Reporting Officer, who expressed his dislikes again in 1983 about the appellant who had succeeded to get earlier assessments expunged. Be that as it may the very fact that Mr. Sibtul Hassan, who was senior officer fully conversant with the Revised Standing Order No. 32 regarding A.C.Rs. he himself should have avoided to make assessment of the work of the appellant for the year 1983, by telling his superiors that as required by the said Standing Order No. 32 of the I.-G. Police, the appellant should be placed before some other Reporting Officer as to his mind, he was not a good officer at all, in any circumstances as held by him previously in 1981 and 1982.

8. In view of the violation of the mandatory provisions of Revised handing Order No. 32 of the learned I.-G. Police, Punjab, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impunged orders and direct that impunged remarks for the year 1983, be expunged, front A.C.R. of tile appellant There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. A.A./246/Sr. P Appeal accepted.