1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant is serving as an Inspector in the Punjab Police and at the moment is posted as S.H.O. Police Station City Kamoki, District Gujranwala. The appellant was conveyed adverse entry through Memorandum dated 26th of August, 1986, for the period from 14‑7‑1985 to 31‑12‑1985. The relevant portion reads as under:‑ Relation with Public: 'Bad'. Integrity: 'Controversial'.

2. The appellant made a representation against these adverse remarks. The same was considered by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab and rejected. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: ‑ I have gone through the representation as well as comments of the Reporting Officer. In his representation, the representationist has pointed out that the Reporting Officer had given him a commendation certificate and some reward in recognition of his good performance. The Reporting Officer has commended that the commendation certificate was given for a specific piece of good work and does not in any way reflect on the aspects adversely commended upon. He has also said that he received a number of complaints about the officer's integrity and behaviour with public and had verbally reprimanded him."

3. The appellant did not feel satisfied with the decision of Respondent No.l, therefore, has filed the present appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 on 11‑6‑1987.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Respondent No.2 has not quoted any instance and there was no complaint received or referred from any party. Secondly, it was urged that the Reporting Officer granted appellant commendation Certificate Class III with cash award of Rs.50 on 15‑10‑1985, for good performance. In the end it was argued that the report is vague and contradictory by the previous as well as subsequent reports.

5. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel but find the same without any merit. The ground that no instance has been quoted and no complaint was received is utterly misconceived. It is neither the requirement of law nor rules for the Reporting Officer to quote instances or refer to the complaints received. The remarks in the ACR are just the gist of his judgment for the whole period and there is no scope and space for quoting instances. The only instruction is, as per instruction No.30 for writing ACR, that the Reporting Officer should be in a position to justify these remarks when called upon to do so. This requirement was clearly complied with as is obvious from the order of Additional Inspector‑General of Police as reproduced in para. 2 above. Therefore, there is no force in the argument. The other argument that the report is contradicted by both previous and subsequent reports is again misconceived. The remarks can be expunged in following eventualities and not otherwise: ‑ (a) If the final Authority dealing with report considers it to be biased or unjustified or inconsistent with the facts. (Instruction No. 44) . (b) When there is violation of mandatory rules or instructions meant for the safeguard of the rights of the official. (c) When official has not served minimum period of 3 months for which the officer is expected to form a judicious opinion (Instruction No.4) (d) Action in case of adverse remarks by same Reporting Officer for more than two successive years (Instruction No.41) etc.

6. The appellant has failed to establish any contradiction in the various parts of the report itself. The argument that the Reporting Officer bestowed a commendation certificate does not help the appellant. It is a strong reason to uphold the remarks rather than to expunge the same. It is clear from this appreciation that the Reporting Officer made the remarks in utter good faith when there was time to reward the appellant, the Reporting Officer was not miser to acknowledge the same. But when time came for pointing out the shortcomings of the appellant he was straightforward and recorded what he honestly felt and believed. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that grant of commendation certificate contradicted the disputed entries in the ACR.

7. The last argument that the appellant earned good reports both for previous anti subsequent periods and the entries in the disputed ACR are contradicted by the same. The reference to the previous and subsequent ACR is irrelevant because each report is to be judged on its own merit. The contradiction should be in various parts of the report itself. It is not to be compared with other reports. Moreover, I have gone through the report for the first quarter of year 1985. The Reporting Officer avoided to, as against the instructions, to give specific remarks in the column "Integrity". The other report referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant covers period from 25‑4‑1985 to 10‑6‑1985. This was too short a period and even according to the instructions three months period is necessary for making judicious assessment. Therefore, these reports do not help and support the cause of the appellant.

8. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./136/Sr.P. Appeal dismissed