1984 PLC (C (PLP)

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).‑Nisar Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 19,74 in which he bas impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed for the expunction of adverse remarks in the A. C. R. for the year 1981 and set aside the impugned orders dated 20th November, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 2nd March, 1983 of respondent No. 1‑

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as A. S.‑I. in the District Jhang when the appellant was communicated adverse remarks for the year 1981. The appellant filed an appeal before the D. I.‑G., Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad which was rejected, vide order dated 20th November, 1982. The appellant filed an appeal before the I ‑G. Police which was also rejected, vide order dated 2nd March, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. The grounds for the appeal are that his preventive action and action under local and special law was not faulty. His rating as S. H, O. was also not below average because he registered and investigated many cases at P. S. Qadirpur as well as Rabwah during his posting in District Jhang. Similarly his integrity was not questionable and he tried to support his claim that he received thirty‑two commendation certificates including the cash rewards. The appellant has rendered about 27 years of unblemished service. The remarks in general disability were misconception as there was no solid material on record.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as learned District Attorney for the respondents and also perused record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the points as mentioned in para. 4 above. The learned District Attorney relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and opposed the appeal. He asserted that the appellant has not attributed any malice or prejudice to the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, muchless of the D. I.‑G. and I.‑G. Police who rejected his representation. The Superinten dent of Police recorded the adverse remarks quoting definite cases and in instances in support of the adverse remarks. The reporting officer (A. S. P,) also conducted village tours of the area and heard complaints of ill‑reputation against the appellant. Secret enquiries were also made with the same result. The S. P. discovered the same reputation of the appellant when he conducted frequent tours.

7. After careful consideration of the above facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that undisputedly the superior officers are duty bound to record the A. C. R. and they are the best judges of the performance of the subordinates regarding their performance and assessment on different items of the A. C. R. In the instant case the A. S. P. as well as the S. P. both were in agreement regarding subscription of the questioned adverse remarks against the appellant. The report was initiated by the A. S. P. and countersigned by the Superintendent of Police. Both the officers have justified the recording of the adverse remarks on the basis o result of investigation and performance of the appellant. They also satis fied themselves after taking village tours etc. and discover the corrupt reputation of the appellant.

8. Hence in view of the above facts we find no force in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.