1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) Relation with colleagues Bad

15. Integrity. Not known. Remarks by first countersigning Officer. "An exaggerated report. An average officer against whom there were general complaints of partisanship." The appellant made a representation through proper channel which was rejected. The period under report has been described as from 26‑10‑1981 to 31‑12‑1981. 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 raised a legal objection to the validity of the adverse entry given by the countersigning authority against the appellant on the ground that the period under observation was less than 3 months, therefore, according to rule 6 of the Standing Order No. 32, no officer was expected to form a judicious opinion about subordinate for not less than three months.

6. With regard to the merits of the case, he has submitted that the appellant had unblemished record of service of about 20 years and was recipient of one 1st Class Commendation Certificate, three 2nd Class and 83 3rd Class Commendation Certificates with cash rewards in recognition of his excellent work, It was further argued that the countersigning authority has given no specific reasons to justify his assessment.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has fully supported the adverse entries so given by the countersigning authority and has argued that same are justified in view of the assessment made by the D.1.‑G. under whom the appellant had served for more than one year in different Police Stations. It has been vehemently argued that the countersigning authority was the best judge of the performance of the appellant via‑a‑vis the periods he was under the, said authority.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that according to parawise comments made by the S. P as well as D.I.‑G. Police fully supported from the record that the appellant worked for the entire year of 1980, under the countersigning authority first at Mandi Hira Singh and then at Jalalpur Pirwala. Both these Police Stations fall within the jurisdiction of D I.‑G. Police, Multan Range, Multan, therefore, it cannot be said that the countersigning authority was not justified for assessing his work and conduct for more than 3 months. In view of the above, legal objection so raised by the appellant, falls to the ground.

9. With regard to the merits of the case, we have perused the comments dated 16‑12‑1981, made by Mr. Muhammad ' Siddiq. Malik, Commandant, Punjab Reserve Police, who was then D.I.‑G Multan at the relevant time and had given the adverse report to the appellant. The D.I.‑G. has given specific instances in support of his assessment of the work and conduct of the appellant, by submitting that it was to his knowledge that the appellant was only accessible to the people recommended by the group headed by Ghulam Nazik and was invariably rough and harsh with the people at x large. He has also stated that his relation with Additional S‑I. Muhammad Yaqoob had been grumbling about this situation as a result of which differences continued to persist between the two officers, and this was an open secret and a common subject at various levels. D.I.‑G. has further commented that it was in his knowledge that he was keeping an ex‑police officer as a scribe for doing his writing work, who was sometime paid by the representationist (appellant) and at other occasions he charged his fee from the parties. He has also pointed that during the following year, his scribe was successfully trapped and thus the factors on which his integrity was down‑graded, stood substantially proved.

10. In the light of the instances so quoted it cannot be said that the countersigning authority made his assessment in an abstract manner and his assessment was vague and general in nature. We have also taken pains to look into the previous record of the appellant and find that he was warned on nine occasions for various misconducts, therefore, the claim of the appellant that he had unblemished record of service, does not stand sub stantiated. There is also on the record that he earned two‑censure during the course of his service.

11. In matters of expunction of adverse remarks it has been the consistent view of this Tribunal that the interference would only be called for if it was found that the Reporting or Countersigning Authority was unable to justify his assessment by concrete examples or the record of the case disprove such like justification. In the present case as the D.I.‑G. Police Multan has cited various examples in support of his assessment of the work and conduct of the appellant, we do not feel any justification to interfer with the same.

12. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. There will re no order as to costs. . Appeal dismissed.