' M. SALEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-In this appeal the appellant is aggrieved by the following adverse report for the year 1978 conveyed to him vide letter dated 3rd February, 1979 :- "Judgment and sense of proportion : 'Below Average'.
"Quite a number of investigations of important cases finalized by him remained disputed particularly F.I. Rs, 260/261 of P.S. Baghbanpura and murder case of same P. S. These cases were got re-investigated by the seniors through other agencies. Hot temper and short vision marred his public dealings." (By S. p.)
' He is a bit rough type. Got panicky in a student procession." (By I.-G. POLICE)
' The representation filed by the appellant to the L-G. Police was rejected on 24th May, 1979. He appears to have made further request vide his application dated 12th August, 1979 for personal hearing which was also rejected on 29th August, 1979 and the result communicated to him on 3rd September, 1979. Hence the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 10th September, 1979.
2. In support of the appeal the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the report by the S. P. Was malicious and mis-conceived. He further contended that the cases F. I.
Rs, 260/261 were nevar handed over to him for investigation which clearly showed that the remarks of the S.P. Are wholly misconceived. With regard to the remarks by the LG. Police, the learned counsel pointed out that the same were subject of enquiry through the Martial Law Team who exonerated the appellant as there was no evidence available to substantiate these remarks recorded by the I.-G. The department in its report stated that the mention of F. I. Rs, 260/261 in impugned report was a typographical error. In fact the appellant was entrusted with case F. I. Rs, No, 200/201. The rest of the allegations as contained in the adverse report were correct.
3. After bearing both the parties we are of the view that so far as the first portion of the report is concerned, the same is totally unsupporte by any evidence. In fact there appears to be some confusion in the mind of the Reporting Officer and we are not prepared to accept that the report recorded in the context of two altogether different case could be applied to the facts of other cases. The appellant in fact has explained before us that the F. I. R. No, 200 was challaned and case F. I. R. No, 201 was first transferred for investigation to S.P. Kasur and then to ASP Wazirabad and ultimately the accused in the said cases were acquitted of charge under section 304, P.P.C. In the circumstances the appellant could not be held responsible in any manner. We, therefore, direct that the aforesaid remarks recorded by the S.P. Be expunged.
4. As regards the remarks recorded by the I.-G. Police, the appellant has failed to substantiate his contention by placing any material before us. We are thus not prepared to accept that he was exonerated of the same. The appellant has also nothing to allege against the I.-G. Police. The appeal to that extent fails. Consequently the appeal succeeds to the extent indicated above.