' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Fazal Muhammad, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Tele- Communications) Punjab (HQR.), Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the S. P. (Tele-Communications) Punjab, Lahore, D.
I.-G., Police (Tele-Communications and Transport), Lahore and I.-G. P. Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that adverse remarks given to him for the year 1980, by the reporting authority, be expunged, as being without any justification as well as uncalled for.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as D. S. P., Tele-Communications, Lahore, was adversely reported upon by the Reporting Officer viz. S. P. (Tele-Communications)
Lahore, for the year 1980. The appellant filed a representation on 14th January, 1981, through proper channel for expunction of the same but the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 13th May, 1981. However, appeal against the adverse entry was filed after waiting for 90 days for the result of his representation on 30th May, 1981, as the said order was not yet communicated to him.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have also perused the parawise comments filed by the respondent No, 1 It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has unblemished record of service and the adverse entry given to him by the S. P. Was not endorsed by the countersigning officer, i,e, Mr. Abdul Qadir Hayee the then D. I.-G. (Tele- Communications and Transport), Punjab, Lahore. Therefore, the respondent No, 3 should have taken into consideration the view point of the superior officer than the Reporting Officer and could not ignore the same as he has done in his case. Reliance was placed on para. 16 (Ii) of the revised Inspectors General Standing Order No, 32, regarding writing of A. C. Rs, and communication of the same.
5. We have taken into consideration the arguments so advanced and will reproduce the relevant para. 16 (ii) of the Inspector-General Standing Order No, 32 (Revised) for reference.
"When a report consists of opinion of different departmental superiors in gradation it is the only opinion accepted by the highest officer which need to be considered from the point of view of communication. If the highest officer does not comment on any remark of a lower authority, it will be presumed that he had accepted it."
' In this case the Reporting Officer has observed about the appellant in the following manner "Lacks in power of command, avoids shouldering responsibilities and to use his competency in disciplinary cases."
' Whereas D. I.-O. Who was countersigning authority in the case of the appellant, has observed that the appellant was resourceful officer who had initiative and drive. He has further stated that the quality and output of the work of the appellant was definitely better than the average s. P. With regarded to discipline and sense of responsibilities he has used the superlative. Besides this, we also find that the appellant during the course of arguments before us, has highlighted his performance and his dealings with the subordinates by showing that he did take proper action at the proper time, keeping in view merit of each case. However the Pivotal point for decision before us is whether the good chit given to the appellant, while countersigning the adverse report against him, by the superior authority of the Reporting Officer, could be ignored by the I.-G. P. Or not. It is a settled principle of law that if any orders or rules are on anvil of any departmental procedure, the same are to be complied with strictly. If such deviation has been made, a person so deviating, would be under obligation to justify his stand. In the present case, Standing Order No, 32 (Revised) is by the I.-0. P. Himself and therefore, he was bound to follow the same in the letter and spirit.
Hence the said order remained in the field and was not superseded by some other order. However the Standing Order No, 32 of I.G. P. Is fully in accordance with the instructions of the Government on the subject.
6. In the light of the above analysis, we direct that the adverse entries against the appellant made by the Reporting Officer, stand expunged and the opinion of the countersigning authority will be effective falls case. However, there will be no order as to costs.