' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Muhammad Afzal Malik has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, D.I.-G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks so recorded in his A.C.R. For the, year 1980 and conveyed to the appellant vide impugned order, dated 13-1-1982, be expunged, as being without any lawful justification. He has also prayed that his representation which was rejected on 1-8-1982, be also quashed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as P.I. Sub-Division, Sumandri District Faisalabad was given following adverse remarks for the said year:-
(a) Sex morality .... "Controversial" {{BLUR PAGE}} his reweirki iconveyed-tof (the appellant vide, Aleeto:@,Ntp9S / 381 /382 , dated. -4-3=-41.-I9tMi Re 'submitted representation ortz 18424981', 'which was duly considered and rejected vide orer, Wed .178r,198;. Li.Ence this rieua zAei iiVej ,rriL) appeal.
4. We V naviqQe heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistitrice"D-, kt
5. Learned counseLlAef ,ftdiappegpX524as submitted that the observation so made by 'the Reporting OfNicer is not supported by any r instance to sustain: the ardieksaidicedvettai,'.Retnarks:11e has also made a grievance that althisugh' 'Out Ite'Arentai4ca- verecineorporated In the A .C.R . Of the appellant but the same :,were eonveyed to him vide memo. , dated 13-1-1982. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this delay would reflect upon the justification-AA the said adverse entry. However, learned counsels ias ;mainly based Mar case; on the point of malice so alleged. Mr. Khan' Zeman `P.D.S.P.;.- who according to him was annoyed with the appellant because he wanted to post one of his well-wisher in his place. According. To learned counsel for th6,-,appellattt, Mr. -Khan Zaman was able to persuade S.P., Faisalabad Mr. Lean Mahrsood, Khan to give him adverse entry against him. It has also been sniUnifted that this iwits:Ateglier well-disposed- towards- 4-he iappelIant,.
On 'the other -hand: learned District Attorney has 'submitted- that the adverse entry hat; been fully justified by the Reladiting OffiCer and the apPleilanti tail' tailed to show any'lnialiCe apiarist. Him.- It his also been submitted:Aimg there, is,:nothing op..*.He record .,to ;substantiate the allegation of the appellant that Mr. Khan Zaman, P.D.S.P. Had some influence over the S.P., Faisalabad, who initiated the adverse entry against him. Aitgyi(b&tivitinv .Tip:OiTiaiite 131? Abed tiChan nOiG 0,004,1p:to-Vs yrfiAvii hi&eilitkoici-e040iveib ittitw riArti itie Oqincvittlit tokatili' kietir e4/4.16i6 yg!p? to get round the S.P. And makEl IiihPtocldbsPrqiitItiVer6eligiirit'StIthe appellant. We have also attendsiC4oulthapparddisti,,sesimentvovherein, besides the wiintbsnqmrgeo.,, Atstrikty igtfignem _wherein it has been stated that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to look into the matters relating to the A .C:rleiitimiiiidever, we repel this argument as ,:absolutely bigielesik and( Xlisiabt 4.Tespingi An ,,iyiew 2:_thaiiitifigment of the SktPrelPP-gPthrki-e 411ticiMikn An ritc1?"gqviniliak, OgYlf,Rrneli0 yoE Ahead (IS g3 314&e,i'1441reitVrit Aas LOW ,kelcui 40 ati 2.'t.1)* ,Tribunal wafi;Itin..49r7:9411R8tigni;40541094- if to the 'Patter 011114 igLiRf as such like entries in the A.C.Rs, ARIA)* promotion of a civil servant.
6E9-fiv,hti ;i9N,wyl ti Sit ltd,4_1(1.1,!. 9t0^..''.'
8- Arteerlig9i9gc.4tiMigiksOke ARtiPttlancfe0 9r t114; 13.4se -Wer44PA fl Y h,tiiat,i4k44vjtysetEgentryr, sisaiabsd.,-; was ;414011findeA1 ARter9kifwgr *JP; MiDid ftOd litthWirtif31;KRinksigfintfkinf the countersiviinvlitttliwit WOE 40-.Pnot . Find, -nnr; role fIC Khan Zeman indicated anywhere on the record to connecthim, with.
The{{BLUR PAGE}} initiating'hfit6er or 'to show jii3bdit any 'thelpetitint: The Reporting Offieer has fiiiit'liasttfted his Stand litid submitted that it was on numerous complantg ieretifect'by hfiVribm time to time, that he was to make this observation which was a correct assessment of the appellant's during the year under report.
9. In view of the above we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.