MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Khadim Hussain, Inspector of Police, Telecommunications and Chief Instructor, P.W.T.S. Bahawalpur has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 against the order dated 19-7-1981 whereby his representation for expunction of adverse remarks conveyed to him by the Deputy Inspector---General of Police on 1-3-1981 was rejected. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted, impugned order be set aside and the adverse remarks recorded against him be expunged.
2. Brief facts of the case, are that the appellant was working as Inspector of Police, Telecommunications at Lahore during the period from 1-1-1980 to 13-7-1980 as Officer Incharge, OI/CW/T-TP Control. There--after he was transferred to Bahawalpur. While he was at Bahawalpur he was served with a letter dated 22-2-1981 issued by the Inspector-General of Police conveying the adverse remarks against him. He filed a representa--tion to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab which was rejected vide order dated 19-7-1981, conveyed to him by the Superintendent of Police. Telecommunications, Punjab, Lahore vide his letter dated 4-8-1981 and received by him on 17-8-1981. Being aggrieved of the order of the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, he has filed the present appeal. ,
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant -as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondent and have care--fully perused the record with their assistance. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that for the later half of the year 1980 and during the period before 1980, the - appellant was not con-- veyed any adverse remarks. His performance during the period under report had been satisfactory in which he was granted four commendation certificates in recognition of good work done by him and as such the remarks are contradictory and are unjustified. On the other hand the learned counsel District Attorney, while controverting the argu--ments of the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the commendation certificates at Annexures E, F and G were awarded to him for his performance during the period before the period under report and even the certificate at Annexure H' is dated 17-4-1980 and is not relevant for the purpose of the present appeal. He has also drawn our attention to the parawise comments of the respondents against para. 2 of the appeal and the comments of the reporting officer which clearly prove that the Reporting Officer has justified his comments by quoting specific instances. As such the learned D.A. Has concluded that the remarks are justified and are liable to be maintained in the Character Roll of the appellant.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record of the case. We have seen the commendation certificates. The commendation certificates at Annexures E and F were issued in 1979 while the certifi--cate ---G' was issued on 28-1-1980 for his performance during the year 1979. The certificate Annexure `H' so relied upon by the appellant was issued on 17-4-1980 while the period for which the appellant earned adverse reports is from 1-1-1980 to 13-7-1980. As such we hold that these commendation certificates are not relevant for assessing the performance of the appellant during the period under report. So far as the adverse remarks are concerned the appellant was rated as `below average' as Supervisory Officer and his performance as Officer incharge OI/CW/T&TP Control Lahore was assessed as unsatisfactory. To substantiate these remarks, it has been observed that on various occasions the appellant was directed to perform his duties from 8-00 a.m. To 4-00 p.m. In winter and from 8-00- a.m, to 2- 30 p.m. In summer but the appellant always left office at 1-00 p.m. It has also been pointed out that in case of failure of T. P. Circuits, even small messages having few groups were sent through Bus Drivers which could easily be passed on W. T. Sets. Had the appellant taken some interest in the improvement of W. T.
Communication, this practice could have b been avoided. However, when this lapse was brought to the notice of. S. P . The later made proper arrangements for improving the said system. So far as the remarks regarding his rating as below average as Supervisory Officer is concerned, it has been submitted that after the transfer of the appellant from Lahore to Bahawalpur, as many as 4,846 massages/14,05,749 groups were passed more than in the period in which the appellant was working at Lahore. It has also been pointed out that at the time of surprise visit of the Inspector-General of Police in the Provincial Control Room, the appellant could not give satisfactory reply to the quaries made by him. Consequently the I.-G. P. Conveyed his displeasure to D. I.-G.
Which resulted in the transfer of the appellant from Lahore to Bahawapur on 2-7-1980 The judicious assessment of these specific instances would show that the performance of the appellant as Supervisory Officer was not only unsatisfactory but was also below average.
5. The result is that we hold there is no merits in the appeal which is dismissed, with no order as to costs.