Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant Sub-Inspector, PHP while posted at PHP Post Hafiz Wala, District Bhakkar was communicated following adverse remarks, by DSP PHP, Bhakkar contained in his A.C.R. For the period from 13.03.2011 to 04.09.2011: "Immature and inexperienced police officer. He needs sometime to handle his job."
' Against the above referred remarks his departmental appeal was rejected by DIG Police, PHP, Lahore on 20.06.2013, hence this appeal is filed on 16.07.2013.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned remarks are result of personal vendetta and as such are not sustainable in the eye of law. Explained that appellant remained posted at PHP Post Hafiz Wala, District Bhakkar for about 08 months. During this period, appellant was awarded C.C.III certificate' by SP/ PHP in recognition of his performance. Further explained that during said period appellant seized as many as 133 un-registered motorcycles. He was never given counseling by the reporting officer before recording adverse remarks in the A.C.R., if there was any deficiency in his work and performance. Lastly contended that adverse remarks are self contradictory as on one hand the reporting officer considered the appellant's performance satisfactory and in the same breath pen down the appellant "immature and inexperienced police officer". Therefore expunction of adverse remarks is prayed.
3. Conversely, the learned District Attorney states that adverse remarks are the result of assessm ent of the reporting officer under whom supervision the appellant was working and he was the best judge to evaluate the performance of the appellant. Therefore, the adverse remarks are liable to be upheld.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. After careful scanning of the facts it is established that the impugned adverse remarks recorded by reporting officer have been found totally unwarranted. In Para No, 1 of the A.C.R., he has evaluated the appellant in grade "A" in 03 columns out of 10 and awarded grade "B" (Average) in 05 columns. The overall rating of the appellant is also marked as "B" (Average) and while recording general remarks/pen picture his performance has been Considered as "satisfactory". But surprisingly in the first part of this sentence the appellant has been termed as an immature and inexperienced police officer who need some time to handle his job. Obviously the remarks recorded by the reporting officer are contradictory and he himself has not been found fair and consistent while making evaluation of . A subordinates. Neither any supporting substance is available before this Court on the basis of which the Reporting Officer came to the impugned conclusion nor it is maintained that any counseling was made with the appellant before recording these uncalled remarks. Obviously it is negation to right of fair handling and due process of law which is necessary to be followed while recording performance evaluation report. Even otherwise if a police officer is found immature and inexperienced, it is the duty of his authority to provide sufficient opportunities to him so that he may built his capacity to mature himself up to the standard demanded by the reporting officer. The experience in a specific field is always open to opportunities; if there is no opportunity in a specific area there is no experience. It is further' notable that if a professional is inexperienced, it does not mean that he is inefficient and liable to adverse Evaluation Report. An .Officer under report is justified to expect fair play by his reporting officer while making assessm ent of his Performance. Any sort of deviation based on personal vendetta or liking/disliking may harm whole the texture of departmental hierarchy. In no case an officer reported upon is to be kept ignorant of the dissatisfaction of his superior officer with regard to the discharge of his duties. A reporting officer while reporting on his subordinate should be as circumspect as possible. He must be clear and direct and .Not ambiguous or evasive in his remarks and avoid exaggeration and gross under-statement. He should also state with particularity whether any of the defect reported have already been brought to the notice of the officer concerned and also whether he has or has not taken steps to remedy them. A reporting officer must observe impartiality, forthrightness and unambiguity for assessing the performance of the concerned officer. If the reporting officer is partial, his opinion is likely to cause incalculable damage to the officer reported upon and again if it is ambiguous or carelessly written, it would not represent the result of careful consideration so that if called upon the reporting officer will not be able to justify his opinion and such a lapse would definitely defeat the purpose of the report. hereas, in this case the Reporting Officer while treating the appellant an immature and inexperienced police officer has failed to point out any stance during the period of report when appellant failed to deliver in accordance with the need of his job. In nutshell remarks impugn in the instant appeal are not sustainable.
6. In view of above, the appeal in hand is allowed and the impugned remarks contained in appellant's A.C.R. For the period from 13.03.2011 to 04.09.2011 are hereby expunged.