' Allah Bakhsh, A. S. I. No, 98, Sargodha Range has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the order. Dated 10th March, 1982, whereby his representation for the expunction of adverse remarks for the year 1977 was rejected, be set aside and the adverse remarks recorded against him for the year 1977 be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as an A. S. I., the respondent No, 1 recorded adverse remarks regarding his work and conduct for the year 1977 which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience and ready reference :- {{TABLE TEXT}}
12. (a) Readiness to expose Below average. subordinates.
13. (a) Sex morality ... Indulgent.
Integrity Corrupt.
17. Class of Report ... 'C'
18. General Remarks "A corrupt, head-strong officer. He was given about five show-cause notices for his corruption and other malpractice in the investigation and was dismissed. He knows police working. He was residing in Dholli-wala and was womanizer. He had a loose control over his subordinates, once he deputed a Constable namely, Fazil for some official work to Arifwala District Sahiwal who started traffic checking at night time for corruption and was caught red-handed and was also drunken. A case was registered at Arifwala P.S. Against MM. This constable was his pet and moves with his posting from one station to another with the blessing of his favourite Inspector Malik Ata Muhammad who got this Constable promoted as H. C. Later on. This Officer is a slur on the Police Department. Is unreliable."
' The appellant submitted a representation on 9th June, 1979 which remained pending which the respondent No, 2 and was ultimately rejected by the order, dated 10th March, 1982, conveyed to him on 25th March, 1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Syed Hassan Ali Shah, District Attorney assisted by Mr. Munir Ahmad P. S. I., Faisalabad for the respondents and have perused the record. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the adverse remarks are without any basis and the Reporting Officer has not been able to substantiate them according to the instructions contained in the Inspector-General of Police, Standing Order No,
32. It has been further argued that the adverse remarks are mala fide for the reasons stated in the appeal. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that in fact these remarks were recorded by D. S. P. Which were fully supported by the remarks of Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and the comments by the D. S. P. Are available on the record which fully substantiate and give the reasons for recording the adverse entries. It has further been argued that there is no violation of Standing Order No, 32 by the respondents and the remarks have been recorded bona fide in discharge of their official functions and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have fully given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record including the report and the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. The record shows that the appellant was dismissed from service on the allegations of implicating the innocent persons in a false case, by the respondent No, 1 vide order of the respondent No, 1 in the year 1977.
The appellant filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, against his dismissal from service which was accepted by the respondent No, 2 vide order dated 15th November, 1977, while holding that the said enquiry was sketchy and conducted in a slipshod manner and the findings of the Prosecuting Inspector and A. S. P. Were evidently based on presumptions and were merely concoctions and without any basis. It was also observed that the applicant was not even heard in person before passing the said order and that he had a good record of service with 67 certificates and 4 censures which were awarded on the same date and at the same time on 1st July, 1977 which censures according to said Deputy Inspector-General of Policy could not be weighed against him. It appears that the Reporting Officer was not happy over his re-instatement and the observations recorded by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in his order which had polluted his mind against the appellant resulting in the adverse remarks. Thus we hold that there is much force in the arguments of the appellant that these remarks were mala fide. It appears from the record that the remarks have been recorded on the allegations that during the year 1976, during the investigation of the case F. I. R. No, 269 of 1976, the appellant refused to register the case under section 13, Arms Ordinance against Noor Muhammad with ulterior motive. Similarly he did not arrest Muhammad Latif upto 26th August, 1976 for ulterior motive. It was also alleged against him that the appellant was deputed to recover an abductee Mst. Khurshid Bibi but he obtained Rs, 250 as an illegal gratification from the complainant resulting into an enquiry by the Anti-Corruption Establishment but on the recommendations of Anti-Corruption Committee the appellant was proceeded for departmental action and was awarded a censure in the year 1977. From the narration of that facts it becomes abundantly clear that the allegations levelled against him mainly pertain to the facts of omission or commission on the part of the appellant in the year 1976 which could not be considered while recording the report in the year 1977. With regard to censure awarded to him in the year 1977 it would be sufficient to say here that the Deputy Inspector- General of Police while re-instating him had observed that the punishment of censure awarded to the appellant on 1st July, 1977 cannot weigh against him. With regard to the indulgence of the appellant in sex morality we do not see any complaints nor any instances have been quoted by the respondents against the appellant nor we find any a report against the appellant on the record. So far as the remarks rating the appellant below average for readiness to expose subordinates are concerned, the only instance given by the respondent is that Foot Constable Mr. Fazil was found checking and drunk at night time within the area of P. S. Arifwala, District Sahiwal and a case was registered against him. By this instance the respondents have gathered the impression that the appellant had loose control over its subordinates. We are afraid that this argument is baseless and not convincing. Admittedly the said Constable was found checking the traffic in an illegal manner at a place far away from the jurisdiction of the appellant and he himself was responsible for his misconduct. The appellant could not be held responsible for the miss conduct of the said Constable. Even the remarks contained in the column of general remarks are not convincing and are without any basis, most of which have been dealt with by us in the preceding paras.
6. In view of the above detailed discussion we hold that the remarks recorded against the appellant in the year 1977 are mala fide and are without any basis. The result is that we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order, dated 10th March, 1982 and direct that the adverse remarks contained in his A. C. R. For the year 1977 be expunged.