1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding non supply of a copy of the full report containing the adverse remarks has not been rebutted by the learned D.A. Our attention has been drawn to the case reported as 1988 P L C (C S ) 424: Naseer Ahmad v. Sr. Supdt. of Police, Rawalpindi and two others wherein this Tribunal held that non supply of a copy of the full report in which adverse remarks are included violates the principles of natural justice. It was further observed that in the absence of complete report not only the civil servant is handicapped in taking proper legal grounds but even the Tribunal is placed in a disadvantageous position to fully appreciate the report and is then obliged to send for the confidential dossiers in all such matters. The Tribunal viewed this practice as not conducive to proper administration of justice. The I.-G. Police was, therefore, directed to take steps to modify Appendix VIII (to Standing Order No.32) accordingly so that in future complete copies of ACRs are supplied to the concerned Police Officers. In the appeal before us the failure of the competent authority to supply a full copy of the impugned confidential report to the appellant has thus violated the principles of natural justice and the appeal is liable to be accepted on this short ground alone.

6. The Reporting Office has rated the integrity of the appellant as `.Controversial'. The appellant's claim that there was no complaint against him nor was he given any counseling or advice during the period under report by any of his superiors has only feebly been challenged by the respondents. In the respondent's written objections in which the comments dated 23-7-1987 Offered by the SSP have also been incorporated, it has been admitted in unequivocal terms that no specific complaints of corruption were received against the appellant. Yet they insist that the appellant did not enjoy good reputation and that the poor rating of his integrity was recorded in view of the general reputation of the appellant. Thus the respondents have failed to justify or substantiate the adverse remarks against the appellant's integrity in any manner.

7. As regards the impugned remark `controversial' about the integrity of the appellant the Reporting Officer in his aforesaid comment on the representation of the appellant had further commented as under: "Poor rating in integrity was recorded in view oft he general reputation of the official although no specific complaint of corruption was received against him he did not enjoy a good reputation."

8. In the written objections submitted by the respondents these very remarks have been reproduced by them. These remarks are evidently vague and the respondents have failed to substantiate them. The learned counsel for the appellant emphatically denied that there were any complaints about the reputation of the appellant. He pointed out that the remarks against the integrity of the appellant were not based on any valid or sound reasons otherwise they would have placed some complaints on record as evidence in support of their claim. He submitted that these remarks were not only violative of the Standing Order No.32 of the I.-G. Police, Punjab but were also subjective in nature and, therefore, unfounded and uncalled for.

9. In cases of this nature it is not enough to say that the integrity of the official was controversial unless the charge could be justified by some evidence which is not only in writing but is made credible by probing into the complaints. During his entire career the officer had been receiving positive remarks with regard to his integrity except for the fact that it was adversely commented upon by the countersigning officer during the year 1985. Even these remarks relating to 1985 have since been expunged. We, therefore hardly find any justification to maintain such vague remarks as they are not supported by any complaint or material on record. We have been reinforced in our view by judgments delivered in cases reported as 1988 P L C (C.S.) 431 Madad Khan v. Director Livestock and Dairy Development, Bannu and 1990 P 1, C (C.S.) 489: Noor Khan v. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi and another.

10. The remarks against Col. 20 `General Remarks' can be broken into three categories which we propose to discuss accordingly: (a) Remarks given in relation to the Muharram incident: "He had to be pulled out of an important P.S. because of his very poor performance. He openly sided with one particular group, in a P.S. with a history of long standing rivalry of two groups. Also allowed unauthorised Alam procession in Muharram; failed to deploy force properly." (b) "Also failed to work out the one Robbery case registered." (c) "Was found to be highly indisciplined and was terribly scared and concerned more about the welfare of his family than law and order during Muharram tension in the area." 11. (a) The Muharram incident took place on 16-9-1986. On 24-9-1986 the Reporting Officer, who was then posted as S.S.P., Bahawalpur submitted a detailed report about this incident to the D.I.-G, Bahawalpur Range, which was followed by another one on 5-10-1986. In his second report dated 5-10-1986 respondent No.3 (S.S.P., Bahawalpur) discussed the deployment and performance of the Police as under: ' - "The main part of the Police force had been at the rear of the procession to keep away the surging crows. Some force was on the front of the procession protecting the Tazia while 1/5 of it roughly was on duty on the flanks of the procession. At that time the D.S.P. Hasilpur had a total force of about 125 men including 60 men from Police Lines and 50 from Bahawalnagar District. The limited police force available did its job exceedingly well and dispersed mob in 5 to 7 minutes with the help of tear gas:"

12. In his enquiry report dated 3-2-1987 on the Khanpur incident Ch. Tanveer Ahmad, D.I.-G., Bahawalnagar Range has to say this on the performance of the appellant and others: "It revealed during investigation that Mr. Muhammad Latif, A.C., 'Mr. Muhammad Hussain, DSP/SDPO, Hasilpur and Mr. Muhammad Munawar I/SHO, Khairpur Tamewali had immediately started their efforts to effect a compromise between ..sects regarding the stopping of the procession on the way at different occasions. These efforts were started by these officers soon after 15-9-1986 when the..........ulema made announcements in the mosques against the at different places." ..all these local officers acted very wisely and tried to their utmost to pacify both the sects. Their efforts brought fruit and they succeeded in controlling the religious sects and keeping them at certain distance till the arrival of the further contingents from the other districts. It further revealed that they also succeeded in getting the procession pass from place/Jinaz Gah peacefully." .it leads to an inevitable conclusion that the local administration as well as police was not acting as silent spectators at the time of occurrence. The investigation has undoubtedly revealed that the local administration as well as police remained vigilant at the spot. They were not at all negligent in any way. They did not act as silent spectators but had rather taken all possible steps which were warranted by law or otherwise:

13. The adverse remarks relating to the unauthorised Alam procession have been discussed by respondent No.3 in his report dated 24-9-1986 in report detail and we reproduce the relevant portion here. "There was absolute peace up to the afternoon of 15th September i.e. 9th of Muharram. After 10.30 P.M. that night the S.H.O. P.S., Khairpur sent a wireless message that the Shias wanted to take out an unlicensed Alam procession in Muhallah Jamia Masjid. He asked for extra force and said that tension was building up. Upon this I directed the S.D.P.O. Hasilpur to reach the spot with some force and also sent DSP Headquarters from Bahawalpur with 2 extra reserves. The negotiations over this Alam procession continued and the matter was resolved at about 3 a.m. that night, when the Alam procession was taken out without mourning ("Matam"). The D.S.P., Hasilpur and the D.S.P. Headquarters after being satisfied that situation was peaceful and under control, decided to send back one of the two reserves despatched from the Headquarters."

14. In his comments dated 23-7-1987 on the representation of the appellant Respondent No.3 had offered the, following comments on his- remarks that the appellant had "openly sided with one particular group m a P.S. with a history of long standing rivalry of two groups:" "As described above he did side with the party of Mian Shahnawaz Pirzada who belongs to Shia sect and in view of his allegiance to Mian Shahnawaz Pirzada he allowed an unauthorised "Alam" to be taken in spite of the fact that he was informed in advance. Entries of the Log Book of the Wireless Station is a clear proof that he failed to take effective steps to prevent the procession which was unauthorised and the matter could be resolved only with the intervention of D.S.P. and A.C., Hasilpur. The entry made at 0235 on 16-9-1986 in the Log Book clearly shows that they were stopped off way to Imambara and it covered more than one street unauthorisedly." It appears that due to the passage of time respondent No.3 had forgotten his earlier comments from his report dated 24-9-1986 which nowhere mentions any of the alleged failings of the appellant or of his allegiance to anyone or siding with one particular group.

15. The above observations/findings of respondent No.3 and Ch. Tanveer Ahmad only belie the former's own impugned remarks relating to the Khairpur incident. In his comments on the representation of the appellant, respondent No.3 has offered an unusual comment. He says that "so far as the observation of the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar who investigated the case later is concerned, this is an open knowledge that this was a departmental courtesy". While saying so he probably forgot the courtesy which he himself had extended to the appellant in his aforesaid two reports. Reading the three reports together there is no doubt left in our minds that the observations made in the enquiry report of Ch. Tanveer Ahmad are forthright and an honest assessment of the situation otherwise, if we believe respondent No.3, such a departmental courtesy, to say the least, would be highly unethical and unprofessional. While we are on the subject, we might as well mention another courtesy shown to the appellant by respondent No.3 only three days after filing his above mentioned report dated 24-9-1986. He awarded the appellant a Commendation Certificate on 27-9-1986 "in recognition of his duties during Muharram ul Haram in 1986 as SHO Khairpur"

16. As regards the remarks that the appellant had to be pulled out of an important P.S. because of his very poor performance, the same do not represent a correct appreciation of the circumstances leading to the transfer of the appellant from P.S. Khairpur Tamewali on 6-10-1986 i.e. only the next day after respondent No.3 wrote to the D.I.-G., Bahawalpur Range that the performance of the local S.H.O. had been upto the mark. What really happened was that after the incident was over, it continued to be criticised by both the sectarian groups and it appears that in order to pacify them and to take: some of the steam out of the agitation, Government ordered the transfer of quite a few local functionaries which besides the appellant also included the Assistant Commissioner,, Magistrate, DSP and Naib-Tehsildar. It was a case of mass transfers which apparently were politically motivated and not a case of an individual's transfer on purely administrative grounds. 17. (b) & (c). The appellant has not been able to factually rebut the allegations mentioned against (b) and (c) in para. 9 above. The registration of the reported case and the incident which took place in the presence of the District Magistrate when the appellant requested for leave to take his family out of Khairpur, are a matter of record and the appellant could only offer a feeble defence to these specific charges. In the circumstances, these adverse remarks in the appellant's confidential report have to stay except the words "was found to be highly indisciplined". Discipline like honesty is a trait which becomes part of one's character. The ACR dossier of the appellant would show that the officer has been depicted as dutiful (1969), amenable to discipline (1972), devoted to his job (1973), an outstanding police officer (1976), a disciplined police officer (1981) and an all round excellent officer having a tight grip and professionally competent (1985). A person does not divert himself of all such qualities overnight. In fact, if a person is disciplined it becomes a habit with him and part of his character. We are, therefore, not prepared to believe that the appellant, who was never before rated as indisciplined throughout his career from 1968 to 1985, suddenly became indisciplined in 1986. It is obvious that the appellant has been dubbed as indisciplined on the solitary incident when according to the reporting officer, the former "became terribly scared and concerned more about the welfare of his family than law and order during Muharram tension in the area". It is not fair to assess a person as indisciplined on the basis of a stray incident. The remarks "was found to be highly indisciplined" are, therefore, unfounded and uncalled for and deserve to be expunged.

18. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the Countersigning Officer has not underlined in red the adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer the same were, therefore, neither approved nor allowed to be communicated to the appellant, is not tenable. Firstly, there is no such provision in the I.-G.P's Standing Order No. 32 that the Countersigning Officer should underline the remarks in red which he considers adverse for communication to the concerned officer. Secondly, even if the first Countersigning Officer did not go through this motion, which as already stated, he was not required to do, the second Countersigning Officer i.e. the Addl, I.-G.P. had specifically required that the remarks should be conveyed.

19. In view of the foregoing we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 3-5-1988, so far as it relates to the instant appeal, and direct that all the adverse remarks, except the following recorded in the Confidential Report of the appellant be expunged: "Failed to work out the one robbery case registered. Was terribly scared and concerned about the welfare of his family than law and order during Muharram tension in the area." There are no orders as to costs. M.Y.H./318/Sr. P Appeal accepted.