' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant, Zia Ahmad Bokhari has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the I.-G. Police, Punjab and Mr. Muhammad 'Asghar, D. I.-G, Police, Multan Range as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the letter of respondent No. 1 dated 11th March, 1980 be set aside and the adverse remarks in his A. C. R. For the year 1976 may be expunged.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as A. S. I. On 5th March, 1964 and continued to serve the Department right uptil 1976 without any blemish. It was in the year 1976 while working as S. H.
0., P. S. Mumtazabad that he earned an adverse report from the then S. P. Multan (Muhammad Asghar Khan) for the period 14th April, 1976 to 30th June, 1976. Later on said Muhammad Asghar Khan became D. I.-G. Multan, and the appellant had again to serve under him for the period 1st July, 1976 to 18th October, 1976 and had the misfortune to get another adverse report from him as the first countersigning officer. Aggrieved against this incident he filed a representation which was ultimately partially accepted by the I.-G. Police who while expunging all other remarks, maintained the following :- {{TABLE}} "(1) Investigation of crime against property Below average Preventive action and action under local and special laws Below average Rating as S. H.
0. If so appointed. Below average Class of report "C". {{TABLE}} ' Many corruption cases were registered against him but were cancelled. Bad type."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as Government Pleader assisted by Departmental Representative and have carefully perused the entire record of this case including the character roll carefully with their assistance. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that his entire character roll would reveal that he was always considered an intelligent and hardworking officer and was recommended fit for promotion. No slur was ever raised during his long period of service against his integrity and performance. It has been pointed out that once during this long period he was subjected to an enquiry but was ultimately exonerated. According to the learned counsel for appellant the period of service under the S. P. Asghar Khan was less than three months, therefore, according to instructions which have the force of law the said officer was not in a position to judge the performance of the appellant in such a short period particularly when in the earlier part of that very year the appellant was given excellent reports both by the then S. P.
As well as the D.
1.-G. Multan (the countersigning officer). It has been vehemently argued that the second adverse report which has been now assailed before us is again by the same officer (1. e. Muhammad Asghar Khan) who happened to be his D. I.-G. By making these submissions it has been urged that it would be surprising that a person who was all excellent for all his service became a devil incarnate within a short period of three months. The learned counsel pressed this point to show that the adverse remarks against the appellant were unjustified and were recorded by an officer who somehow or the other took strong dislike to the appellant. In support of his arguments/to show that the remarks were unjustified, he has formulated a table of preventive action and action under local and special laws taken by the appellant during his tenure at police stations Mumtazabad and Burewala (Annexs. C & CM.
4, On the other hand the learned Government Pleader has raised the jurisdictional point that under the Act a Government servant can only appeal before us in matters affecting his terms and conditions of service and the adverse remarks do not fail within this category, therefore, appeal was not maintainable. On merits it has been submitted that although the period of service is less than three months under the S. P. But the S. P. Had an occasion to watch his performance for more than three months as D.
1.-G. According to the learned Government Pleader the reporting officer would be in a position to make assessm ent of the conduct and performance of the appellant adequately in that period. It was finally argued that the appellant got redress from the highest authority of his Department, i. e.
The I.G. Police, and assessm ent by the said authority about the performance of this officer was fully justified.
5. We have given or anxious thought to all the points so raisd by the parties, and first we will deal with the legal objection raised by the learned Government Pleader. We would have given due weight to this objection if it would have been raised before us before 2nd December, 1980, but today we have no hesitation to repel the same on the strength of the Supreme Court judgment given in C. P. S. L. A. No, 1938 of 1979 on an appeal from the order of this Tribunal dated 12th September, 1979 re : Secretary to Government Punjab v. Ahmad Kamaluddin. Their Lordships while rejecting the Government's special leave to appeal observed as under :- "The recording of the annual confidential remarks, their communication to the officer concerned, entertainment of representation against adverse remarks and their expunction are all matters governed by detailed instructions of the Government. They can be made the basis for departmental and disciplinary action against an official. These reports make up the service record of the officer concerned. Such record is consulted and heavily relied upon for determining the suitability for promotion, posting and disciplinary action."
' Their Lordshipsjurther observed while adverting on this point : "The recording of the remarks is indeed within the exclusive competence of the superior officers but to say that such a record is immune from review or reconsideration would defeat the very provisions made which provide for representation and their expunction in certain situations. These remarks are reviewable under the rules applicable to their recording and an appeal to the Service Tribunal will lie in appropriate cases." Resultantly their Lordships were pleased to dismiss the Government appeal in the above said case.
6. With regard to the merits of the case the claim of the appellant is irrefutable with regard to the first adverse entry as the period of service under the reporting officer was undoubtedly less than three months. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that this assumption is violative of the rules on this point framed by the Department itself. While going deep into the matter we have carefully looked into the adverse entries and find that the said S. P. Has failed to apply his mind while dealing with the subject matter before him. Columns Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the A. C. R. Pertain to : rating as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector ; rating for Miscellaneous appointment ; and rating as Supervisory Officer, and remarks against them is "below average". It is against hard facts of the case that the appellant never served in any such capacities. This would reflect on the mind of the reporting officer as to how much he understood the situation. Similarly it would have been appropriate to keep in view the previous performance of the appellant of the same year which pertained to a larger period than the one before the said Officer, We also and that no special instance has been relied upon for coming to a conclusion which would for all times block the way of this subordinate for promotion in service. B However, we would not further comment upon the decision of the said officer but, to say the least, it is apparent that he had not enough time to Judge the performance of the appellant as laid down under the rules and it was proper to refrain from making a hasty assessm ent. With regard to the second exercise as D I.-G. Police, the factor of human nature cannot be excluded. Once an Officer had discarded a person for reasons best known to himself it would be quite natural to reiterate his opinion about the same.
7. The I.-G. Police while sitting in final judgment over the representation of the appellant did not agree with the S. P./D. I.-G. On many points and for cogent reasons expunged most of the serious observations but, some how or the other, chose to keep certain remarks on the A. C. R. Of the appellant. We have taken lot of pains to go deep into this process and find that maintenance of the remarks : "Many corruption cases were registered against him but were cancelled" is an irreconcilable factum. If the cases had been cancelled such cases were false and frivolous. In such a situation it would be highly unjust to , maintain the observation in the personal file of the appellant. This would amount to giving something with one hand and taking it away by another.
The destiny of a civil servant is not to be played with so lightly. Similarly if the stigma of 'killer' has been expunged, to keep the words "bad type', which would have followed the first qualifications so expunged, would be highly unfair.
8. In view of the above detailed discussions and the deep insight which we have made into this case, in the larger interest of justice, we have no hesitation to direct that the impugned remarks maintained on the A. C. R. Of the appellant for the period in question be expugned. There will be no order as to costs.