' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Mubashar Hussain, Prosecuting Inspector of Police, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 26th April, 1984, passed by Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, refusing to expunge remarks for the period 1st January, 1979 to 4th April, 1979.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and adverse remarks for the period from 1st January, 1979 to 4th April, 1979, be ordered to be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was adversely reported upon for the period from 1st January, 1979 to 4th April, 1979, conveyed to him on 13th July, 1981. He made a representation to the next higher authority which was considered and rejected by the Additional Inspector-General of Police vide his order, dated 29th April, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. It has been submitted on his behalf that the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Lahore, could not initiate the said A.C.R., as the competent authority to record his A. C. R. At the relevant time was S. P. (Admn.) and the countersigning authority was D.I.-G. Lahore Range, Lahore.
In this respect the appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Reporting Officer to initiate the said A. C. R. He has made grievance that the said A. C. R. Was conveyed to him after two years, which was violative of Standing Order No, 32, para. 16 (III), which lays down that remarks must be conveyed by the end of June of the year in which remarks were so recorded. It has been submitted that the learned Additional I.-G. Punjab did not afford opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that he had established a centralized process serving agency for the service of processes to help the Courts in the early disposal of the cases and for that purpose about 130 constables were given in his charge. It was vehemently argued that due to hard work and interest in his job the appellant effectively controlled the constables and managed to raise the process service from 26% to more than 50% in the cases of Lower Courts and 100% in Sessions Courts.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Reporting Officer and has submitted that the legal objection raised by the appellant are misconceived, as the post of Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore was upgraded to that of D.I.-G.
From 27th January, 1975, and as such the A.C. Rs, of P. Is/P. S. Is. Of Prosecution Branch were initiated by the P. D. S. P. And countersigned by the D. I.-G., Lahore. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that it is always the assessment of the Reporting Officer which is material for determination of the case in matters of A. C. R. And in this case the Reporting Officer is fully justified for the aforesaid comments.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the legal objections so raised by the appellant are devoid of force on the ground that the post of S. S. P.
Was upgraded to that of D. L-G. Police, w,e.f. 27th January, 1975, and as such the A. C. Rs, P. I. And P.
S. Is. Of Prosecution Branch were initiated by P. D. S. P. And countersigned by D. I.-G , Lahore, which fact is apparent on record.
8. With regard to the merits of the case we find that the Reporting Officer has based his assessm ent on the actual conditions prevalent at the relevant time in Service Processing Agency at Lahore, therefore. We have no reason to interfere in the same. It is also the fact not controverted, that the appellant remained on long medical leave therefore, his assessment that his health was below average, cannot be called incorrect.
9. In the light of the above we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.