1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).‑‑ Abdul Hamid, S.I. No.M/176, S.H.O. Shuja Abad Police Station, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan as respondents. By verse of this appeal, he has prayed that the order issued vide Memo: No.622/CRC, dated 7‑2‑1981 from the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan to the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal be set aside and the adverse remarks contained therein be expunged.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks for the year 1980 by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police through the Superintendent of Police vide Memo: No.622/CRC, dated 7‑2‑1981 which are reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "Departmental enquiry (1) Censured on 6‑3‑1980 for mis instituted against him conduct in that while as S.H.O. during the year, nature Luddan made entries in the of allegations and result. History Sheet of Abdul Rehman alias Rehmani that the history sheet was untraced for the last 2 years but to the contrary this B.C. had committed that on 17‑1‑1979 and case F. I. R. No‑15, dated 17‑1‑1979 u/s 380/411, P.P.C. was registered at P.S. Luddan. (2) Censured on 16‑10‑1980 for mis conduct in that while posted as S.H.O. P.S. Ahmad Yar, he did not take preventive action against the parties of case F.I.R. No.41 dated 17‑5‑1980 u/s 302, P.P.C. and 148/149 P.S. Ahmad Yar. 5. (a) Investigation of crime against property Below average. (b) Preventive action and action under Local and Special Laws. Below average.

6. Rating as an S.H.O. if so appointed. Below average. 12. (b) Readiness to expose subordinates. Below average.

15. Integrity. Controversial.

17. Class of report. C Fitness for retention after 25 years Unfit Service.

22. Unfit for further promotion as Unfit. reached his ceiling.

23. General remarks: 'Has outlived his utility as an S.H.O. due to his old age. He failed to cope with the working at P.S. Ahmad Yar, a very light charge. His control over crime, criminals, ilaqa and subordinates was poor. Preventives and detection was also not upto the mark. Is just marking time. The appellant submitted a representation to the Dy. Inspector‑General of Police, for expunction of adverse remarks, vide order dated 30‑3‑1982 conveyed to the appellant on 3‑4‑1982, it was rejected. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the entries regarding imposition of penalty of censure on 6‑3‑1980 and 16‑10‑1980 are uncalled for and are unjustified against whom he has also filed an appeal before this Tribunal which are likely to succeed. Regarding other remarks grading him as below average and rating the integrity of the appellant as the controverted it is submitted that these are against the facts and without any substance. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that it is an admitted fact that the appellant was imposed the penalty of censure on the said dates which fact has correctly been mentioned in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the year 1980. Regarding the rating of the appellant as below average in investigation of crime and preventive action it has been submitted that these remarks are proved on record. It has been concluded that Reporting Officer while offering the comments on the representation of the appellant has fully justified them and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

4. We have actively considered the arguments of the parties and have examined the record of the case. Against Sr.No.4 regarding Depart mental Enquiry it has been mentioned that the appellant was imposed the penalty of censure on 6‑3‑1980 and 16‑10‑1980 on the allegations of misconduct and for failure to take preventive action against the parties involved in a murder case. We can conveniently refer here that the appellant has also filed two appeals against the said penalty which have been disposed of by us alongwith this Judgment and we have held in those cases that the order of the Departmental authorities were in accordance with the rules and the appeals have been dismissed. In view of the above dismissal of the appeals against the order of censure, we do not see any reason to expunge these remarks. Regarding entry against S.No.5(a)(b) and (c) we may observe here that imposition of a penalty vide order dated 16‑10‑1980 is a fact which is sufficient to show that the rating of the appellant regarding investigation and preventive action was definitely not upto the mark and he was not an efficient S.H.O. So far as the rating of the appellant as below average regarding readiness to expose subordinates, we have already observed in the appeal No.182 of 1982 that the appellant did not initiate the departmental action against the A. S. I. and failed to initiate preventive action against the parties involved in the murder case in order to prevent the commission of said murder. Regarding other entries we have examined the figures and the data provided by the appellant as well as by the respondents and after placing them in juxtaposition with each other, we are satisfied that the appellant was definitely not and efficient Police Officer and the remarks recorded against him are perfectly justified.

5. In view of the above analysis we hold that there are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. M.I. Appeal dismissed.