S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Farooq Ahmad, Inspector police, F..I.A. Immigration Check Post, Railway Station, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, D. I.-G. Police, Multan Range, Multan and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks given to him for the period from 1st January, 1980 to 19th June, 1980 and duly conveyed vide impugned order, dated 18th February, 1981 be expunged, as being without any justification.
3. Briefly facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed following adverse remarks, entered in his A.C.R. For the period from 1st January, 1980 to 19th June, 1980 vide letter, dated 18th -February, 1981 :-
13. Rating of morality, "Controversial"
(a) Sex morality.
15. Integrity. "Controversial"
"There is a complaint pending with A. C. E., Multan against him, regarding construction of his house on Government land by collecting material through illegal means. He went of the rails during his this tenure."
The appellant submitted a representation, dated 19th April, 1981 in which he explained his position vis-a-vis adverse entries so given in his A. C. R. By the Reporting Officer. The appellant was informed vide letter, dated 14th September, 1981 that his representation has been filed. A regular enquiry against him was being conducted by the Anti-Corrup--tion Department, the appellant awaited for the result of the same and when he found that he had been exonerated from all the charges, he once again requested through his representation that in view of the result of the enquiry, the adverse remarks be expunged. This representation was made, on 18th September, 1982 a few days after the communication of the said order but the same was rejected on technical plea that as no further representation lies in view of paragraph 18(iv) of Standing Order No. 32, therefore, the same was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. The appellant has also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in which he has prayed for condonation of delay for the reasons given in that application.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case care--fully with their assistance.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the remarks in column 13 about sex morality were vague because these did not at all describe whether appellant indulged in any act which was in contraven--tion of the ethics of sex morality. It was further submitted that the countersigning officer did not agree with the remarks on the above score given by the Reporting Officer. It was further submitted that the Re--porting Officer had also watched the appellant's integrity, while he was posted as S. H. O., Depalpur and S. G. P. O.; Chichawatni for the period from 5th July, 1979 to 20th June, 1980, under him. According to the learned counsel the remarks in this column No. 15 were only given on the basis of false complaint that the appellant had constructed a house on Government land by collecting material through illegal means. It was vehemently urged that the term of reference of the said enquiry related to the unauthorised construction of house on the State land, collecting bricks from brick kiln free of cost and employment of men on `Began' The third reference 'vas that the appellant was enjoying persistent reputation of being corrupt.
According to him 72 witnesses were to be examined in respect of all the charges and 61 witnesses were examined and the remaining 11 refused to attend. The result of detailed enquiry by D. S. P., Pakpattan, dated 8th July, 1982, ended in the exoneration of the appellant from all the three charges. In view of the above he has submitted that the very basis on which his integrity was considered con--troversial, stood washed of by the enquiry, therefore, there was no justification that these remarks should remain on the file of the appellant.
7. With regard to the filing of the appeal beyond the time limit it was submitted that this had only happened as the enquiry was still in progress, and the appellant could not make out a case for himself, unless the result of the enquiry was cleared. According to the learned counsel, as soon as the result of the enquiry became clear and he stood exonerated of all the charges he lost no time and moved a representation, bringing new facts to the notice of the superior, but the said representa--tion was rejected on technical ground. He has prayed for condonation of delay by this Tribunal.
8. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the Reporting Officer has given elaborate comments in which he has submitted that with regard to his moral integrity his assessm ent was based on various information he collected when he was touring that Ilaqa and particularly in the face of the fact that the appellant had contracted a love marriage, which according to the Reporting Officer, could only culminate due to immoral overture which must have been made by the appellant before the said marriage was solemnized. It has been further argued that the Reporting Officer has further submitted that his assessment about the honesty of the appellant was based due to the enquiry which was pending against him, with regard to the construction of the house and other ancillary matters. It has been strongly argued that the opinion of the Reporting Officer was based on cogent reason and the same be upheld.
9. We have looked into the entire service record of the appellant from 1966 to 1981 and find that throughout his career uptil 1969, it was observed in the column of 'Integrity' that there was no complaint against him. From 1970 onward uptil 1971, we find that he has been reported as honest and obtained very good remarks from his superiors. From 1972 to 1977, no comments were made about his honesty but it was stated that he was a good Police Officer, who did a really fine job in giving hot chase to dacoits and was locked in an encounter with them. According to the Report, the appellant liquidated four of them and thus displayed a great sense of duty and devotion. In 1972, he was reported as sensible officer who performed his duties well. In 1977 although there is no comment about his integrity but it has been stated by Mr. Jehangir Mirza S. P., that the appellant was an experienced officer, who worked hard and is dedicated to his profession. In 1978 onward uptil 1979, he was considered honest while Qazi Safdar Hussain, S. P. And Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan, S. P., Reporting Offcers, found him honest in the year 1978 and 1979 in remarks column, it was stated that the appellant was an experienced, intelligent and tactful Police Officer. His working remained upto the mark at Station Depalpur which was a difficult charge. He is worthy and dependable. It was also stated that he was hard working, intelligent and obedient who is very keen and enthusiastic. However, Mr. Muhammad Siddique, D. I.-G., considered him an average officer. It was only in the year 1980, Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan, S. P. Changed his opinion and gave him adverse remarks with regard to Rating of morality as well as integrity. In the year 1980, after the above remarks of Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Mr. Jehanzeb Burki, D. I.-G., found him a well- disciplined and hard working officer who discharged his duties in satisfactory manner. In 1981, he was found honest by the S. P, who remarked that the appellant was good officer and enjoys reputation of good moral character. According to the S. P, the appellant possesses good common sense.
10. With this entire above history of the appellant's career, what we find is that the Reporting Officer Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan, changed his opinion in 1980 and gave him adverse entries whereas in the entire career of the appellant, his integrity was never challenged and he was found very good officer. Keeping this aspect of the case in view we have looked into the contents of the detailed inquiry report conducted by the D. S. P., Pakpattan and find that integrity was also under looked into whether the appellant's reputation was persistent for reference, when it was stated in the term of reference, that it should be dishonesty. What we find is that the Enquiry Officer after recording evidence of 61 witnesses came to a positive conclusion that all the three charges, construction of house, arranging free labour and material and enjoying persistent reputation of corruption were without foundation and he was exonerated from all the charges. In this situa--tion, it would be very difficult for us to repel the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that a solitary adverse entry by an officer, who formerly found the appellant as honest as well as hardworking and intelligent, cannot be sustained particularly when a detailed enquiry has resulted in his favour. We also cannot ignore that the matter of sex morality was not accepted by the countersigning officer and in this manner the assessm ent of the Reporting Officer was not approved by his superior i.e. D.
I.-G.
11. We have taken care to look into the comments of the Reporting Officer and find that be has, in a way, admitted that with regard to his assessment of honesty of the appellant, he was influenced by the incidence of the enquiry which was in progress at the time when he gave him a bad entry with regard to this aspect of his career. However, he has adopted strong stand with regard to sex morality of the appellant on the ground that while on tour he was told that the appellant was of immoral charac--ter and has also cited an example in this connection by saying that the appellant celebrated his love marriage. We are afraid we cannot accept a personal standard of sex morality of the Reporting Officer because marriage is a marriage, whether it culminates due to love or is arrange by the parents. To stretch the standard of morality to this extent, according to our mind, would not be fair.
12. With regard to the delayed appeal filed by the appellant, we condone the delay on the ground that 'he only came up with a second representation, when he found a fresh ground to do so. The vital matter in this case was whether the Enquiry Officer found him guilty or not. When the very basis of foundation of the said charge stood completely demolished, he was fully justified to tell his superiors that the remark regarding the same charge, should not find mention in his A. C. R. And be expunged. We consider it solid ground for condonation of delay and proceed to condone the same.
13. In the light of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the appeal merits acceptance we; therefore, accept the same set aside the impugned orders and direct that the entries pertaining to the' year 1980 given by Mr. Muhammad Anwar S. P., be expunged. There will be no order as to costs. The judgment may be conveyed to the parties.