' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-- Abdul Hamid, Sub-Inspector No, M/176, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Vehari, and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the orders, dated 4-6-1980 and 3-4- 1982 passed by the respondents Nos,1 and 2 be set aside and the adverse remarks contained therein be expunged from the Character Roll of the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted as S.H.O., at Police Station, Sahuka, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan visited the said Police Station for formal inspection and made certain observations for the first and second quarter of 1978 and also directed to serve a show-cause notice for inefficiency which was served on 4-11-1979. The appellant submitted a reply to show-cause notice which was considered by the Superintendent of Police and the said show-cause notice was withdrawn. However, at the time of writing of Annual Confidential Report from 26-7-1979 to 31-12-1979, the following adverse remarks were recorded against the appellant which was conveyed to him vide memo., dated 4-6-1980, from the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan:-- "D.I.G./Multan Range made certain observation on the Formal Inspection of P.S. Sahuka for 1st and 2nd Qrs. 1978 and directed to give show-cause notice for inefficiency which was served upon."
' The appellant filed a representation for the expunction of adverse remarks which were rejected.
Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties and have also perused the record. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that issuance of show-cause notice does not constitute adverse remarks particularly when the said show-cause notice was also filed. It has further been argued that during the relevant period of 1st and 2nd quarters of 1978 the appellant was awarded Commendation Certificates, dated 7-2-1978 and 10-5-1978 commending the good work and performance of the appellant. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that it is an admitted fact that the show-cause notice was served on the appellant and that certain observations were made by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police at the time of formal inspection of the Police Station. Since these are admitted facts so these have been incorporated in the Annual Confidential Report and are not liable to be expunged.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the m parties and have also perused the record. The record shows that as a result of a formal inspection of Police Station Sahuka, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range had made certain observations regarding the performance of the appellant as S.H.O. Which resulted in the issuance of a show-cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the competent authority who is the Superintendent of Police in this case was satisfied with the explanation of the appellant and he discharged the show-cause notice and filed the enquiry, so the basis of these remarks had washed off and there was no justification for the Reporting Officer to have incorporated these remarks in the Annual Confidential Report.
5. We also cannot ignore the fact that during the said relevant period, the performance and the work of the appellant at Police Station, Sahuka was commended by the Superintendent of Police, when we see that two Commendation Certificates, dated 7-2-1978 and 10-9-1978 were granted to the appellant with a cash award of Rs,75 and Rs,50. Thus we are satisfied that there was no justification for the Reporting Officer for recording the remarks as are communicated through the memo., dated 4-6-1980.
6. In view of the above analysis we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, dated 3- 4-1982 and direct that the adverse remarks contained in the memo., dated 4-6-1980 of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police be expunged from the Character Roll of the appellant. There are no order as to costs.