' S. HAFIZUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-The appellant in this case is Abdul Majid, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Through this appeal, he seeks expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the period 1st January, 1979 to 15th November, 1979 by the D. Lahore Range, which remark was communicated to the appellant vide order dated 9th July, 1980, of the Inspector-General of Police. A representation made to the I. G. P. Was rejected on 13th December, 1980.
2. During the hearing of the case, it was stated on behalf of the appellant that in the period to which the ACR pertained, the appellant was working as Inspector in the CIA, Lahore, under Ch. Muhammad Zaman, S. P. City Division, and Lahore. In January, 1980, Ch. Muhammad Zaman was retired on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension, and in accordance with general instructions that civil servants who were retired in this fashion should not be asked to write confidential reports of officials working under them, the impugned ACR was written by the D. I.-G.
Himself who would normally have countersigned the report? It was contended that the adverse remark in question did not contain the opinion of the D. (Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Malik) but only reflected the views of Ch. Muhammad Zaman who, having been retired under section 12 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, was not qualified to give his views about the performance and conduct of the appellant. Moreover, the adverse remark was factually incorrect and the appellant had acquitted himself very well during the time he worked in the C. I. A. At Lahore. In fact it was on the basis of his record that he had been promoted as D. S. P. On behalf of the respondents it was stated that the representation of the appellant for expunction of the impugned remarks had been duly considered in the light of comments obtained on it from Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Malik, the reporting D. I.-G., the appellant was given a proper hearing, and it was then that the representation was rejected.
3. We sent for the character roll of the appellant to look at his record. We also went through the comments offered by Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Malik on the appellant's representation. The remark impugned by the appellant is as follows :- "A well-built officer whose performance as Inspector, CIA in the City Division remained of just routine nature. He had definitely given his immediate supervisory officer-S.P. City the impression of being a clever and irresponsible officer."
On the face of it this entry only voices the opinion of Ch. Muhammad Zaman, the then S. P. City Division. We have perused the Government letter dated 29th July, 1979 directing that officers retired under section 12 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act should not be allowed to write or countersign the ACRs of their subordinates. No reason is mentioned for this direction but it is obvious that no credence is to be given to the opinion that such officers held about those working under them during the last year of their service before retirement. In this view of the matter the adverse entry recorded by the D. I.-G. Becomes suspect in that it only repeats the impression formed about the appellant by Ch. Muhamma " Zaman, the then S. P. City, who was later retired under section 12 (ii). The only part of the entry which appears to be the D. L-G's. Own independent opinion says : "A well-built officer whose performance as Inspector, CIA in the City Division remained of just routine nature". We also noted that in the appellant's ACR for the period 31st August, 1978 to 31st December, 1978 the same Ch. Muhammad Zaman, apart from describing the "Rating for Morality" as "Above Average", "Relation with Public and Colleagues" as "Good" and "Integrity" as "Honest", had said the following in the column for General Remarks:-- "Working as I/c City Division CIA and has produced reasonable results. Takes interest in his job.
Resourceful and intelligent."
' To this the D. I. G., the same Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Malik, had added his comment "Seen". That is, he was not in disagreement with the assessment of Ch. Muhammad Zaman.
4. However, Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Malik, in his letter dated 4th October, 1980 addressed to the I.-G.
P., and giving his comments in the appellant's representation against the impugned remarks, referred to an instance about the alleged irresponsible conduct and professional inefficiency exhibited by the appellant. According to Mr. Malik, the appellant was guilty of misconduct and gross high-handedness during a raid that the appellant conducted as Inspector in village Burj Atari in the jurisdiction of P. S. Sharaqpur, in order to round up some suspects. In this encounter, as stated by Mr. Malik, one innocent person was killed through panic firing by the Police party under the appellant, when there was no occasion to fire at all. As this was a serious allegation we looked at the record of that case called from the S. D. P.
0., Ferozewala. We found that in that encounter it was the suspects/culprits who fired at the Police raiding party; that the Police fired no shot ; that one Sher Muhammad was hit and killed by a bullet fired by the suspects/culprits and that the appellant was in no-wise concerned with the encounter.
It is apparent that the contents of the FIR and later investigation reports perused by us do not bear out the allegation of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Malik against the appellant.
5. After examining all the above-mentioned record we have arrived at the conclusion that the opinion expressed by the Reporting D. I.-G about the appellant was not based on a correct appraisal of his performance and conduct, particularly in connation with the encounter at Bury Atari to which the D. I.-G. Has given considerable space and importance in his letter to the I.-0. P.
On the strength of this conclusion we are in a position to say that the impugned adverse remarks recorded by the D. I.-G were not deserved by the appellant and need to be scored out.
6. We, therefore, accept this appeal and order that the impugned adverse remarks, i. e. "He had definitely given his immediate supervisory officer-S. P., City the impression of being a clever and irresponsible officer", shall be expunged from the appellant's ACR. There shall be no order as to costs.