1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).‑‑‑‑Being aggrieved by a communication of adverse remarks, recorded in the ACR for the year 1995 by the Countersigning Officer vide office of the S.P. Pakistan Railways Police, Quetta letter dated 15‑2‑1996, the appellant Muzaffar Ali, filed departmental appeal to the Inspector General of Pakistan Railways Police, Lahore on 3‑3‑1996 which was rejected by the I.G. PRP, on 9‑5‑1996 and forwarded to the appellant vide letter dated 13‑5‑1996. The appellant filed present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant appeared and argued the case that the impugned order dated 13‑5‑1996 is contrary to law and facts as the D.I.‑G. (Countersigning Officer) is not well‑conversant with daily work of the appellant and he cannot assess the. performance of the appellant. The Reporting Officer (AIG) is the immediate officer, he knows the daily performance of his subordinate (appellant) and accordingly he did not record any adverse remarks against the appellant. The learned counsel contended that the reporting officer was satisfied with the appellant and he has accordingly written ACR for the year 1995. He submitted that adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer have no legal effect which required to be expunged. The learned counsel also submitted that the Crime Branch where the appellant was posted as Sub‑Inspector is not competent to initiate the investigation of any case at its own. It only can investigate the matters which are transferred to the Crime Branch from the higher Authorities. It is neither declared a separate Police Station nor the Police Officials posted in this Branch could register the cases at their own nor they could take preventive measures under section 109, Cr.P.C. as the Officer Incharge of Crime Branch does not function his duties as S.H.O., as such, the rejection of appellant's departmental appeal on the grounds that he failed to detect a single case of narcotics or illicit weapons, to register a case under the Head of Local and Special Laws and to take preventive measures under section 190, Cr.P.C., is not justified and the remarks recorded in the ACR are liable to be expunged. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention that recently the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 15‑4‑1997 recommended the appellant for promotion to the post of Inspector which vitiates all the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of year 1995. He prayed that the appeal may please be accepted expunging the adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer. 3.The learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents argued that the appellant has no case as he was warned by his superiors several times to improve himself but he failed to amend himself and he did not make sincere efforts to perform his duties effectively, professionally and showed lack of interest in official duties as the remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer are justifiable as he has recorded these remarks on the basis of his personal assessment. Regarding recommendation for promotion of the appellant to the post of Inspector, the learned counsel conceded the fact and produced the minutes of the meeting held on 15‑4‑1997.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer are as under:‑‑ "ACR for 1‑1‑1995 to 29‑7‑1995. "

6. Rating as crime control "Below Average" officer 6(a) Investigation of crime "Below Average. against property. 6(b) Preventive action and action "Below Average" under Local and Special Laws.

10. Rating as supervisory "Average" officer.

18. Class of report. "C" Fitness for promotion. "Not yet fit for promotion but likely to become fit in due course of time." General Remarks: "Below average working in all aspects of police working." ACR for 30‑7‑1995 to 24‑12‑1995. "

6. Rating as crime control "Below Average" officer. 6(a) Investigation of crime "Below Average" against property. 6(b) Preventive action and action "Below Average" under Local and Special Laws.

18. Class of report. "C" Fitness for Promotion. "Not yet fit for promotion but likely to become fit in due course of time. General remarks: "Below average working in all aspects of police working." The aforesaid remarks have been communicated to the appellant on 15‑2‑1996 which remained under process between the appellant and the respondents upto 17‑6‑1996 by filing the present appeal before this Tribunal On 15‑4‑1997 a meeting of Departments Promotion Committee was held in which the name of the appellant was considered alongwith others for promotion to the post of Inspector. The DPC recommended the appellant for promotion as Inspector in the following terms:‑‑ "S.I. Muzaffar Ali (S. No. 4) was superseded in the DPC held on 6‑4‑1996 due to adverse comments in his ACR for the year 1995. He has earned "A" report during year 1996 and has a clean record of service except for one censure in 1983. Therefore, the DPC declares S.I. Muzaffar Ali fit for promotion and recommends as such to the approving authority." S.Is. from S.No. S to S. No. 15 are declared unfit and recommended to be superseded for not qualifying Upper School Course. " . A bare reading of the aforesaid recommendation of the DPC in favour of the appellant indicates that there is something wrong between the appellant and the Countersigning Officer. Record shows that the previous record of the appellant was not so bad. There were some warnings and minor punishment like "censure" but on the whole he has a better record. The learned counsel for the respondents also could not show any warning or counseling issued to the appellant during whole the year which is mandatory provision under the rules. The appellant has been graded "A" in the ACR of 1996 which also shows that he has a better reputation. In view of the aforesaid discussion and perusal of record we have no alternative but to accept the appeal setting aside the impugned order dated 15‑2‑1996 with the directions that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the appellant by the Countersigning Officer be expunged and treated as "good".

5. No order as to costs.

6. Parties be informed. H.B.T./258/ST.F. Appeal allowed.