1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Integrity Controversial. Class of Report .C "A sheer mediocre who developed reputation for corruption. His conduct is under enquiry on the charge of corruption."

3. These remarks were conveyed to the appellant by respondent No.2 on 26-2-1987. The official represented to respondent No.2 on 14-3-1987 for the expunction of the remarks but as already stated above, the representation was turned down on 24-11-1987. While rejecting the representation, respondent No.2 also made an observation in the impugned order that "Reportedly his conduct on the charge of corruption is under enquiry which is still to be finalised .." The appellant states that only one enquiry on the charge of committing misconduct in a case F.I.R. No.74, dated 5-11-1986 under section 506, P.P.C. and under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. was conducted against him in which he was exonerated of the charge by respondent No.1 vide orders dated 23-6-1987. He has vehemently asserted that no enquiry on the charge of corruption was pending against him at that time and that the enquiry referred to be respondent No.2 in his impugned order dated 24-11-1987 had no bearing on the ACR in question.

4. Whereas there is substance in the appellant's claim that no enquiry was pending against him on the charge of corruption but the reference in his appeal to the enquiry conducted against him in the case registered under F.I.R. No.74, dated 5-11-1986 is misplaced and wholly irrelevant to the point at issue. This enquiry was ordered on 16-2-1987 on the. charge of misconduct and the appellant has rightly pointed out that in this case he was exonerated by respondent No.1 vide orders dated 23-6-1987. While it is hypothetically possible that the mention made by reporting officer/respondent No. 1 in the ACR to the effect that the appellant's "conduct was under enquiry on the charges of corruption" could be in relation to this enquiry because when he wrote those remarks on 24-2-1987 the above enquiry had just been ordered on 16-2-1987. However, it is inconceivable that respondent No.2's observations, in the impugned order dated 24-11-1987 rejecting the representation of the official, to the effect that "his conduct on the charge of corruption is under enquiry which is still to be finalised ...." could have reference to the above enquiry which had already been concluded on 23-6-1987. The appellant is thus absolutely right when he says that this enquiry could have no bearing on the ACR because not only that the charge was of misconduct and not of corruption but also because the enquiry had already been finalized and the appellant exonerated of the charge.

5. The fact of the matter is that, as pointed out by both the respondents in their parawise comments, there was a second enquiry pending against the appellant during the year 1986. In the second enquiry the appellant was charge-sheeted on 26-12-1985 in connection with another case (F.I.R. 15/84, dated 18-1-1984) on the charge of inefficiency and misconduct. He was eventually awarded the minor punishment of withholding of his promotion for one year by respondent No.1 on 12-12-1987 and this must be the enquiry which respondent No.2 appears to have in his mind when he wrote that the appellant's "conduct on the charge of corruption is under enquiry which is still to be finalised.." It was much later i.e. on 13-6-1988 that respondent No.2 rejected the appellant's representation against the aforesaid orders of punishment dated 12-12-1987.

6. It is thus obvious that when respondent No.2 wrote the impugned remarks in his order dated 24-11-1987 regarding an enquiry being pending on the charge of corruption against the appellant, he must have the second enquiry in his mind. To that extent it could be said that respondent No.2 was justified in making the impugned reference to the second enquiry but the irony is that neither the first: enquiry nor the second were initiated on charges of corruption. In the first enquiry the appellant was charged with misconduct. While exonerating him of the charge respondent No.l had clearly stated in his order dated 23-6-1987 that the "appellant does not stand guilty of any misconduct. Even in the second enquiry the charges levelled against the appellant were inefficiency and misconduct and not corruption. In his order dated 12-12-1987 respondent No.l while awarding him the punishment of withholding of promotion for one year, had clearly stated that "the misconduct against him has been proved during the enquiry."

7. It is thus evident beyond any doubt that neither of the two enquiries had been conducted on the charge of corruption although for the purpose of this appeal only the second enquiry is relevant. The statement of both the respondents in their para-wise comments that "The enquiry in question was on the charge of corruption and was mentioned as such in the ACR" is a misstatement and factually incorrect.

8. In view of the above discussion we accept the appeal to the extent that the following remarks recorded in the ACR of the appellant for the year 1986 should be expunged: "His conduct is under enquiry on the charge of corruption."

9. We would also like to add that in para. 27 of the instructions about confidential reports it had been provided that "if a formal enquiry is ordered against a Government official during the year under report the fact must be mentioned in the report. Similarly, final orders passed as a result of the enquiry should also be placed on Character Rolls:" These instructions i.e. the whole para.27, have since been deleted vide SGA&ID's No.SOR.IV (S&GAD14-5/82, dated 25-3-1984 which means that if an enquiry is still in progress and has not been finalised, no mention of it now need be made in the ACR. Since the ACR in question relates to the year 1986 and was initiated on 24-2-1987 i.e. much after the deletion of para. 27 of Instructions, any mention of an unfinished enquiry in the said ACR was, to say the least, a superfluous entry. Thus on this account also the impugned entry deserved to be expunged.

10. As a natural corollary of the above direction of the Tribunal, the impugned order dated 24-11-1987 of respondent No.2 is also modified to the extent that the words "Reportedly his conduct on the charge of corruption is under enquiry which is still to be finalised" shall stand deleted from the text.

11. Although the appellant has prayed "that the order of the DIG, Rawalpindi Range Rawalpindi may kindly be set aside and the adverse remarks against the appellant may be expunged" but in his appeal he has only discussed and laboured to rebut only the above specific remarks of respondent No.2. We, therefore, do not feel compelled to take cognisance of the rest of the adverse remarks which though similar in content are otherwise independent of the impugned remarks. For the same reason, the appellant's prayer for the grant of consequential relief and back benefits becomes irrelevant and is, therefore, not accepted. There are no orders as to costs. Copies of the signed judgment be released to the parties according to the procedure of the Tribunal. M.Y.H./310/Sr.P Order accordingly.