' S. HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN (MEMBER).-This appeal by Mohammad Ibrahim Khalid impugns the letter dated 9th December 1979 issued by the I.-G. Police, Punjab, to the appellant conveying an adverse entry in appellant 's ACR for the period 1st January 1978 to 16th May 1978 and seeks expunction of this entry. His representation to the IGP for expunction of this entry was rejected.
2. The appellant, an Inspector of Police, was sent on deputation to the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation and remained there from 12th December 1977 to 1st April 1978. Obviously there is some mistake in the dates mentioned by the PUTC, because if the appellant admittedly left the Corporation on 1st April 1978 his ACR had to be till that date and not till 16th May 1978. The ACR was recorded by Mr. Iftikhar uddin, Senior Special Magistrate, PUTC.
3. Arguing the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that Mr. Iftikharuddin had nothing to do with the appellant's work in the PUTC and the only officer qualified to assess the appellant's performance was the Chief Traffic Officer. It was submitted that the Chief Traffic Officer had in a certificate dated 1st April 1978 praised the appellant's work and described him as well- behaved, smart and cooperative. Similarly, Brig. Mohammad Ahmed (Retd.), the Managing Director of the PUTC, in his certificate issued on 28th March 1978, stated that the appellant was "a smart and personable young man who has worked with devotion and diligence. Is honest and well-behaved and should do well in his profession." Unfortunately the appellant and Mr. Iftikharuddin did not see eye to eye on may matters relating to the appellant's duties in the PUTC and that is why that gentleman gave him an unfavourable report. On behalf of the respondent (the IGP) the only contention was that the borrowing authority (the PUTC) had the right to express its views about the appellant and that while rejecting the appellant's representation the views of the reporting officer had been duly solicited and taken into consideration.
4. The impugned remarks are as follows "There is much room for improvement. "Was under- employed in the PUTC."
The first remark is rather vague, for it does not specify in what field the appellant was found deficient in integrity, in performance, in output, in behaviour or in efficiency. The second part almost justifies the appellant 's deficiency by stating that he was "under-employed". This expression has two connotations. One, that he was senior than the requirement of the job and, two, that there was not enough work for him. In either case it is not an adverse remark ; rather, in a way, it gives the appellant credit for having worked in a post which was lesser than his status or did not offer him sufficient opportunity to show his work. In addition, this part of the remark also tends to contradict the first part about there being much room for improvement. In an case the remark does not convey the real meaning of the reposting office and is too general and vague to be relied upon, apart from being for period part of which was spent by the appellant outside the PUTC.
5. In view of the above we see no option but to order the expunction of the impugned remarks, and we accordingly do so. Resultantly the appeal is accepted. There will be no order regarding costs.