1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing : 13th July, 1982. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑ Akhtar Mahmood Qureshi, Inspector of Police, Incharge W. 1./T. P. control, Civil Secretariat, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Tele communication and Transport, Lahore and Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal be has prayed that impugned orders dated 22nd February, 19251 and dated 7th September, 1981/15th September, 1981 be set aside.

3. Brief history of the case is that Mr. Akhtar Mahmood Qureshi, Inspector of the Police, Incharge W. L/T. P. control, Civil Secretariat, Lahore was conveyed the following adverse remarks from his A. C. R. for the year 1980 vine letter, dated 2tnd February, 1981. "He pester his seniors for his transfer back to Lahore. Not soldier mind. I do not satisfy on his performance during the period under report." "He has been a disappointment. Being a non‑technical band, be considers it the duty of his superiors so retain him at Lahore. He is a liability on the Telecommunication Wing." The appellant made representation for the expunction of above adverse remarks to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was rejected by order, dated 7th September, 1981 conveyed to the appellant on 15th September, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued and mentioned that these adverse remarks are not based on actual facts as these general remarks are contrary to specific remarks where the appellant has been shown average in many columns. Thus, the above remarks given by the Superintendent of Police as well as of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police are not justified. He argued that appellant did not pester his seniors to bring him back to Lahore, but actually, in February, 1980, appellant was transferred from Lahore to Rawalpindi as his mother was sick and victim of paralysis and was receiving treatment in U. C. H. Lahore. The appellant submitted his application for his re‑transfer to Lahore, on above grounds. Obviously his own application did not amount to pestering his seniors. He further argued that the appellant has to perform technical job, as he is not member of regular police force and thus remarks as "Not soldier mind" are misconceived. The counsel continued to argue that the appellant had performed duties diligently and efficiently and his perfor mance was satisfactory. As for as the remarks that "He has been a disappointment being a non‑technical hand he considers it the duty of his superiors to retain him at Lahore. He is a liability on the Telecommunica tion Wing", the appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant holds diploma in Radio Engineering. Radio Communication and Radio practices which have direct relevancy with the wireless communication system and the appellant, thus he could not be categorised as non‑technical hand. Moreover, ever since his transfer to the Tele‑communication section the appellant has always been commended by his superiors and commendation certificates were granted by various S. Ps. and D. I.‑Gs. for his good Telecommunica tion work. He has been performing his duties efficiently and the remarks that he has been a disappointment and liability on Telecommunication Wing are totally incorrect and not justifiable. He has good service record both before the year of 1980 and afterwards. Even for his work at the time of Islamic Conference is May, 1980, the appellant was awarded a C. C. Class II with cash award of Rs.

500. The appellant's counsel concluded that adverse remarks given in his A. C. R. for the year 1980 are unjustified and be ordered to be removed. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments and submitted that parawise comments on this appeal .of the appellant submitted by Inspector‑General of Police Punjab, Lahore be adopted on his behalf. He further submitted that the comment submitted by the reporting officer and the D. I.‑G. on the representation of Inspector Akhtar Mahmood Bokhari for the expunction of adverse remarks while forwarding it to higher officers, be also perused which further prove that the adverse remarks given are in accordance with the facts

5. We have given anxious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney and have care fully examined the record. Furthermore, if the reporting Officer/1st countersigning officer is in a position to justify the adverse entries so given by him to a subordinate, the consistent policy of this Tribunal has been to maintain the same in view of the various judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan in this behalf. We have gone through the letter of reporting officer No. 147/C. R. C, dated 29th April, 1951 to D. I.‑G. Telecommunica tion and Transport of Police, Lahore and letter No. 302/P. A , dated 25th June, 1981 by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur (the then first countersigning officer) to the Inspector‑General of Police Punjab, Lahore which comment upon the representation of the appellant regarding expunction of adverse remarks for the year under report. The reporting officer list countersigning officer has stated that the appellant is a non‑technical hand, in that he has no knowledge about the know‑how of the wireless equipment with the Punjab/Police. The appellant was inducted into Tele‑communications on certain recommendation in 1973, because he wanted to stay on at Lahore. Since D. I.‑G. felt that the appellant must prove his worth, accordingly, he was transferred to Bahawalpur with the intention that he would pick up telecom munication works at the Punjab Wireless School, Bahawalpur. But the appellant appeared in the Orderly Room and requested that he be consi dered for retention at Lahore or else be may be transferred to Rawalpindi. His request for transfer to Rawalpindi was accepted. Soon after he landed at Rawalpindi, the appellant started pestering the D. I.‑G. through official and friends for his transfer back to Lahore. When it was not done the appellant applied for leave which was not sanctioned because it would have set a bad precedent for other to follow who, like him were trans ferred out of Lahore. His performance at Rawalpindi left a lot to be desired. Reporting officer has also commented that when he bad no other alternative, the appellant as a last resort to achieve his objective, again applied for four months earned leave in August, 1980 which was granted. After the expiry of the leave he was required to resume duty at Rawalpindi on 30‑12‑80, but he, in the meantime, submitted another appli cation, dated 27th December, 1980 supported with Medical Certificate issued by a private Medical Practitioner for grant of medical leave. It has been further pointed out that award of commendation certificates and performance at occasions had no relevancy with this issue. Moreover, the class 11 commendation certificate which he received at the conclusion of Islamic conference, was in routine and not for performance of any excep tional duty. In fact, all Inspectors received such certificates alongwith cash award.

6. Going through the facts of the case, keeping in view the justifica tion put forward by the reporting officer/1st countersigning officer, we hold that there is no merit in this case. The appeal is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.