MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).- Muhammad Latif Akmal, P.D.S.P.. Mianwali has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Mianwali, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range.
Sargodha and the Inspector-General of Police. Punjab, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the adverse remarks contained in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1981 conveyed to him vide letter, dated 22nd June, 1982 by respondent No. 3 be expunged and the order rejecting his representation dated 11th November, 1982 be set aside
2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as P.D.S.P. Mianwali he was conveyed adverse entries contained in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1981 by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab vide memo. Dated 22nd June, 1982 which are given below for the sake of ready reference: "Integrity
(a) Intellectual Below Average
(b) Moral Below Average.
Has assumed the reputation of corruption."
The appellant submitted a representation to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore on 3rd July, 1982 which was rejected on 11th November. 1982. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the Inspector-General of Police. Punjab vide letter, dated 27th September, 1981 endorsed to the Superin--tendent of Police, Mianwali on 5tb October, 1981 had called upon him to submit a special report regarding the work and conduct of the appellant for the period from 1st January, 1981 to 30th November, 1981 to enable the Department to decide if the appellant be allowed to cross Efficiency Bar. It has been submitted that vide memo dated 30th November, 1981 the Superintendent of Police, Mianwali recommended to allow the appellant to cross Efficiency Bar w.e.f. 1st December, 1981 on the ground that work and conduct of the appellant remained good for the period from 1st January, 1981 to 30th November, 1981 and no case/enquiry was pending against him at Mianwali. Thus, it has been concluded that when according to recommendation of the Superintendent of Police himself, work and conduct of the appellant was good from 1st January, 1981 30th November, 1981 then there was no justification on the part of the Superintendent of Police, Mianwali to give adverse remarks in dispute, only for one month of December. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondents has adopted the parawise comments and has submitted that although according to the practice prevailing in the Department, the Officers/Officials generally having good or satisfactory record is allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar, yet it has no relevancy regarding the assessm ent of work and conduct of the person concerned for the purpose of writing his report. He has also submitted that Superintendent of Police, Mianwali has fully justified the remarks recorded by him against the appellant.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of the documents aced on record by the appellant, it become abundantly clear at the appellant was due to cross Efficiency Bar were. f. 1 December, 1981 so the Reporting Officer i.e. The Superintendent of Police was requested by the Higher Authorities to submit a special report n the work and conduct of the appellant during the period from 1 January, 1981 to 30th November, 1981. Consequently, the Superinte--ndent of Police after appraisement of the work and conduct of the appellant submitted a report to the higher authorities intimating them that the work and conduct of the appellant remained good for a period from 1st January, 1981 to 30th November, 1981 and that no enquiry of any sort was pending against him at Mianwali. The recording of the special report is permissible under the law as laid down in paragraph 13 f the revised, Inspector- General of Police's Standing Order No. 32 which lays down that if a Government Servant is placed on a special report for any reason, the special report should be placed on his: character Rolls. So this Special Report for a period from 1st January, 981 to 30th November, 1981 should find its way on the Character Rolls of the appellant as envisaged in para. 13 ibid. Although we agree with the arguments of the learned District Attorney that while deciding to allow a Civil Servant to cross Efficiency Bar his Confidential Reports even for be past years are taken into account, yet we fail to see the effect of this arguments on the present issue. When the Reporting Officer had express-- ed his opinion in favour of the appellant for a period of eleven months, then there should have been very from extraordinary reasons for recording the adverse remarks in dispute, which are general and were in nature. The Superintendent of Police has evaluated the moral and intellectual integrity of the appellant as below average, but he has not been able t justify these remarks, by concrete examples. Similarly he has not been able to substantiate the bad Deputation regarding corruption of the appellant. The reason given by the Superintendent of Police does not find support from the perusal of the police file of the criminal case mentioned by the appellant because we do not see the person quoted by the Superintendent of Police as the accused in the said case. Thus, we hold that the remarks in dispute have been incorporated without any justification and have not been substantiated by the Reporting Officer to our satisfaction and as such cannot be permitted to remain oil the Charac--ter Roll of the; appellant.
5. In view of the above analysis of the case we accept the appeal and set aside the order, dated 11th November, 1982 and direct that the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidentialst st Report of the appellant for the year 1981 conveyed to him vide letter, dated 22nd June, 1982 be expunged. There will be no order as to costs.