1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑This is an appeal by Mehboob Hassan Maneka, D.S.P., against the adverse remarks for the period from 28‑2‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984. The adverse remarks were conveyed to the appellant vide DO letter dated 15‑8‑1985, and read as under:‑ "Carried out on 20‑1‑1985, inspection of the office of S.D. P.O., Sadiqabad for the year 1984. It was found that he mainly depended on his readers for maintaining the office record and writing of G.S.Rs which were hopelessly poor in quality. The crime situation was far from satisfactory due to lack of supervision. He was advised to take due interest in his official duties and bring about definite improvement in the working of Police Stations under his charge. He will not be acceptable in higher grade for un-effectiveness." The appellant feeling aggrieved by the adverse remarks proceeded to file a representation before Respondent No.l, who rejected the same vide order dated 1‑2‑1987. The decision was conveyed to the appellant through Memo. dated 22‑2‑1987, Annexure G. This way the appellant was obliged to file the present appeal, which came up for preliminary hearing on 21‑5‑1987. We sent for the record which was produced by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, departmental representative. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 3‑12‑1987.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned remarks are contradicted by the report of the Reporting Officer which is to be given preference because he had sufficient time to watch the conduct and performance of the appellant as against the adverse remarks, which were recorded by the countersigning officer, as a result of a single visit.

4. Secondly, it was submitted that the name of the appellant was recommended for award of PPM and the appellant in support thereof has attached copy of the letter of D.I.G. dated 24‑9‑1984, addressed to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab. It is pointed out that the same D.I.G. Police was countersigning officer of the report assailed in this appeal.

5. The learned District Attorney has opposed the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the remarks are justified and recorded by a senior Police Officer after spot visit and there is nothing to belie the same.

6. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and have gone through the record minutely. We are of the considered opinion that the remarks are of advisory nature as is clear from the phraseology used by the countersigning officer in the main report:‑ "He was advised to take due interest in his official duty and bring about definite improvement in the working of Police Stations under his charge." The report is liable to be set aside for another reason namely that the period of report is 28‑2‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984, as is clear from Annexure with the appeal, while inspection was carried on by the countersigning officer on 20‑1‑1985, therefore, the remarks should not have formed part of report of the year, 1984. The case of the Respondents dashes to the ground on this score alone.

7. The result is that the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the remarks are expunged from the A.C.R. of the appellant. There is no order as to costs. S.Q./200/Sr.P Appeal allowed.