S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Masood Ahmad Javed, S. I. Police Special. Branch, Multan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he his impleaded Superinten--dent of Police, Sahiwal, D.
1. G. Police, Multan Range, Multan and I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore, as Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted, adverse remarks for the years 1977 and 1978 be expunged and impugned orders dated 6th June, 1979, 15th October, 1979, 18th March, 1980 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as S. I in Sahiwal District during 1978, was conveyed adverse remarks in his A.C.R. Vide letter dated 6th June, 1979. These remarks were recorded by Superintendent of Police under whom the appellant worked for 7 months and countersigned by the Deputy Inspector of Police, Multan as Court--tersigning Officer. The Appellant made a representation dated 23rd July, 1979 in which he represented that the adverse remarks were not factually correct as these were contrary to the facts and figures with regard to the performance of the Appellant as S. H. O. Police Station. Saddar Sahiwal and in C. I. A. Staff. The Appellant made a representation to the next higher authority through D.I.-G., but the same was decided by the D.I: G. Himself and rejected the same. However, D. I.-G. Expunged the remarks pertaining to the investigation of crime against property. He also expunged the adverse remarks under General Remarks to the effect that as S. H. O. Working at various Polio: Stations his working was below standard. Rest of the remarks were maintained. The appellant made a second representation for expunction of said adverse remarks. He was heard in person on 3rd March, 1980 and his representation was also examined by D. I.-G. The D. I.-G. Observed that second representation was time barred as well as inadmissible under rule 18 (5) of I.-G. P.'s Standing Order No. 32. However, he was once again heard in person in detail on every point, but the representation was rejected as it was found that it was without any fresh material as well as time barred, vide D. I.- G.': order dated 5th March, 1980. Hence this appeal.
4. 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.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that all these remarks made against the appellant were general and vague in nature and did not qualify the test as laid down in Standing Order No. 32, with regard to making of such adverse entries in the A. C. R. Of a Police Officer.
Learned Counsel has further submitted that as part of the remarks that the appellant worked as S. H. O. At various Police Stations was below standard, was expunged, therefore, the assessment based on this ratio cannot be maintainable. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by quoting numerous examples of his performance which according to him was upto the mark, to prove that the assessm ent made by the S. P. As well as by D. L-G. Was unwarranted by facts and figures. Main reliance on this aspect of the facts has been placed by the learned counsel on I.-G. P. Circular No. 8/19955-99/77 dated 27th December, 1979 and has submitted that according to this Circular, which in fact is based on Standing Order No. 32, "the reports by the superiors against their subordinates should be objective and not subjective and no sweeping statement should be made and the adverse remarks should always be substantiated by specific instances. He has also alleged malice against the Reporting Officer and has argued that the assessment of the said officer is due to personal grudge and is not based on facts.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that D. I.-G. Fully considered the case of the Appellant while disposing of his first representation and was fair in dealing with the same when he found that certain remarks made against the appellant were not substantiated by facts and figures and ordered the expunction of these entries. According to the learned District Attorney the D. I.-G. Was fully satisfied with regard to the categorization of the work of the appellant of all other categories and was also convinced that general remarks with the exception that the appellant work as S. H. O. At various Police Station was below standard, was correctly made.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced orally by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as his detailed pleadings in the Memorandum of his appeal visea-vis parawise comments filed by the Respondents and find that the allegations of malice against the Reporting Officer has not been substantiated either by any documentary evidence or oral in nature. Therefore, it would not be possible for us to accept his plea of malice against the Reporting Officer.
8. With regard to the merits of the case the Respondent S. P. Sahiwal has defended his observation with regard to column No. 5 (b) i. e. Preventive action and action under local and special laws, by submitting that out of cases registered by the appellant under local and special laws, the achievement of the appellant was only one convic--tion whereas the rest of the cases failed miserably. With regard to column 6 "Rating as S. H. O. If so appointed" it has been stated that the appellant has tried to mingle the two different facts of column 6, whereas the assessment in this regard by him (Reporting Officer) was based on the correct assessment of his ability to work as S. H. O. While dealing with column 12 (a) Readiness to accept responsibility he has submitted that it was within his personal knowledge that the appellant resorted to barking crime and did not register the cases of theft which were later on registered when the occurrence were brought to the notice of the Reporting Officer. He has also quoted an instance of his failure to work out robbery case F.I.R. No. 147 under section 392, P.P.C. P. S. Sadar Sahiwal, for which he was duly censured. He has also dealt with his assessm ent regarding 12 (b) "Readiness to expose subordinates" and has vehemently opposed the claim of the appellant that his work in this regard was upto the mark. In this respect he has submitted that instances quoted by the appellant with regard to his report against Mr. Aftab Ahmad A. S. I, for his wilful absence cannot exonerate him from this responsibility as the said case was a clear cut case, which he cannot avoid reporting. However, he never reported against any of his subordinates for his misdeed or irregularity during his stay under him.
As far as his observation about integrity of the appellant taking it as controversial, it has been submitted that he was the best judge of his integrity being an immediate superior who came across section of public opinion and was fully justified to make assessment of his general reputation. This is why the word controversial has been used by him.
9. The Reporting Officer is also justified in his general observation by claiming that the appellant worked under him for full 7 months and therefore, he was fully conversant with his behaviour, habits and talking tall therefore, no exception can be taken of his assessment which was formulated keeping his past as well as present record of service in view.
10. In view of the detailed discussions of the work and conduct of the appellant made by the Reporting Officer we are fully satisfied that the assessment so made by him is neither vague nor general in nature and is absolutely in accordance with the instructions of the I.-G. P. Based on Standing Order No. 32 of the said authority.
11. The result is we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits.
There will be no order as to costs.