' FAIZ KARIM, (MEMBER).-- Muhammad Ishaq has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab, Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab Lahore, as respondent.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. For the period from 1-1-1981 to 25-7-1981 may be expunged.
3. Brief facts and grounds for the appeal are that the appellant served in the rank and capacity of the Inspector/S.D.P.O. Arifwala, District Sahiwal for the year 1981. During the period he was communicated adverse remarks vide letter, dated 21-4-1982. The appellant made a representation against the said order to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, on the ground that the remarks were not justified by the Reporting Officer and they are also not consistent with other remarks of the same A A.C.R. Recorded by the said Reporting Officer. The representation was rejected vide order, dated 10-5-1983. He further pleaded that the same Reporting Officer gave adverse remarks previously for the period from 1-8-1980 to 31-12-1980 and which were expunged by the Inspector- General of Police, Punjab vide his letter, dated 23-11-1982. This indicates the bias and misunderstanding on the part of the Reporting Officer. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney for respondent and have also perused the relevant record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the grounds as mentioned in para. 3 above. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal on the ground that each period is to be assessed by the concerned Reporting Officer according to the performance of the official. The question of adverse remarks of the instant case have no bearing or connection with the previous adverse report no matter recorded by the same Reporting Officer.
6. After giving careful consideration to the facts of the case it may be stated that the appellant has not mentioned any prejudice or bias from the Reporting Officer who recorded the remarks or the I.- G. Police who rejected - his representation muchless proved it to show that the questioned adverse remarks were outcome of bias or prejudice against the appellant. Secondly the appellant accepted the favourable decision of the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, concerning the adverse remarks of the year 1980 but felt aggrieved with his decision concerning for the year 1981 regarding adverse remarks. Lastly there appears to be no logic of inconsistency because if it is so then the Reporting Officer should either give favourable comments in all the columns of the A.C.R.
Or in the alternative should give unfavourable comments (adverse remarks) in all the columns which is not the case in letter and spirit of the A A.C.R. It is understood that each and every item has to be assessed separately by the Reporting Officer. Incidentally the questioned adverse remarks were not recorded in the preceding report.
7. Hence there appears no justification to disagree with the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
' There will be no order as to costs.