Turej Ahmad, S. I. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded S. P., Sahiwal and D.I,-G. Police, Multan Range, Multan as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that adverse entry so placed in his ACR for the year 1975 be expunged.
3. -'Brief facts of the case are that while appellant was working in District Sahiwal, the Reporting officer gave him adverse entry in which his integrity was considered controversial and his work `Below Average'. He filed representation against the same on 30-9-1976, which was duly considered by the D.1.-G. Police who rejected the same. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the P.D.S.P., Multan and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse entry so given by the Reporting Officer against the appellant is liable to be expunged on short ground that he served under him for a period of less than 3 months, which according to him; would not confer any entitlement on the Reporting Officer to assess his work for this period as the same would be against the rules laid down in this behalf. While elaborating this argument he has pointed out that appellant remained posted as SHO Burjwala Sahiwal from 19-5-1975 to 31-7-76 when he was sent for Traffic course. With regard to the merits of the case he has submitted that by his own observation the Reporting Officer has stated that the allegation did not substantiate for any action departmental or judicial in the murder case which according to the learned counsel was a subject-matter of this adverse entry. It has been further submitted that even the Reporting Officer when called upon to comment upon has conceded that the remarks were not based on any authentic source and were based on some hearsay and be expunged.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has stoutly resisted the claims so made by the appellant through his learned counsel and has submitted that the appellant remained under overall supervision of the Reporting Officer for the period from 1-1-1975 to 31-1275 although he held charge at various places but in the same district. With regard to absence of the appellant from the District Office for his Traffic Course the learned District Attorney has stated that it would not make any difference as the remaining period which he served under the S. P. Would be more than 9 months.
7. With regard to the merits of the case and averment of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Reporting Officer has himself conceded in favour of the appellant it has been pointed out that same was factually incorrect. According to the learned District Attorney the S., P. (Reporting Officer) has fully justified his observation by giving a specific reference to a murder case as well as, has nowhere stated that he made the observa--tion without any cogent reason.
8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments so raised by the parties and first of all would refer to the controversy whether the appellant served under the Reporting Officer for more than 3 months or the period was that of less than 3 months. I have seen the original Confidential Report and find that the appellant remained posted in Sahiwal District from 1-1-1975 to 18-5-75 Police Lines, from 19-5-75 to 30-6-75 SHO PS Burjwala, from 9-9-75 to 30-12-75 PS Chichawatni and from 31-7-75 to 20-10-75 remained on Traffic Course, which took place out of the District. With above- cited figures I am satisfied that during the year 1975, he remained under over all supervision of the Reporting Officer for more than 9 months. In this manner it cannot be said that the work of the appellant cannot be assessed by the Reporting Officer as his period of stay under him, was less than 3 months.
9. With regard to the merits of the case I have seen the comments of the Reporting Officer who has clearly stated that his observation about the appellant was fully justified, as he found him a party in a particular murder case, by an act of corruption. However as the same cannot be fully proved by evidence therefore, he cannot be taken to task departmentally or judicially but the impression which was created in the mind of the Reporting Officer was based on particular instance which related to a murder case. To my mind this would be sufficient justification by the Reporting Officer about the conduct and integrity of the appellant.
10. I have carefully looked into the contention of the appellant that the Reporting Officer himself has conceded that the remarks be expunged as they were not based on facts but on hearsay evidence, and find that this is factually not correct. It is nowhere on the record that the Reporting Officer made such observation. For this I place reliance on letter No. 40--PNCB/PR/STENO/82 dated 15-2-1982, which is a letter from the Regional Director, Government of Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Peshawar (the then S.. P. Sahiwal). What the S. P. Has said, is reproduced as under; "In the end, I may observe that he seems to have suffered incalculable loss if this is an insolated and a solitary instance of adverse remarks. In case he had shown consistency in following a life of rectitude in the subsequent years without coming to disparaging notice, I am inclined to suggest that he may be granted his rights of promotion and seniority."
This observation of the Reporting Officer nowhere indicates that he has changed his opinion about the appellant, but in all fairness, has suggested that if the appellant has improved his future conduct, the solitary instance may not stand in his promotion.
11. I have also looked into the service record of the appellant and quite agree with Mr. Nisar Ahmad Chaudhry, D.I.-G. Police that his record of service was chequered one and never earned good report after 1975. The D. I.-G. Police has rightly advised him to put in hard work and honest labour to earn a good report, if be so desires for any advancement in life.
12. In view of the above analysis of the case of the appellant from all angles. I do not find any justification to interfere with the well-considered order of the D. L-G. Police who upheld the adverse entry, against the appellant.
13. The result is, I proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. Parties will bear their own costs.