' Nazir Abmad, A.S.I. No, 1727, Special Branch, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks from his A. C. R. For the period from 22nd July, 1981 to 23rd October, 1981 be expunged and order, dated 10th April, 1984 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks from his A.C.R. For the period from 22nd July, 1981 to 23rd October, 1981 :- {{TABLE TEXT}} "4. Departmental enquiry insti- (1) Awarded Censure for faulty tuted against him during the investigation in case F.
1. R. year 2 No, 125/81 P. S. Sadar.
Nature of allegations and result.
(2) Awarded Censure for faulty investigation in case F.
1. R. No, 129/81 P. S. Sadar.
5. (a) Investigation of crime Below average. Against property.
(b) Prevention action and Below average. Action under Local and Special Laws.
12. (a) Readiness to accept Below average. Responsibility.
14. (b) Relations with Collea- Bad. gues.
17. Class of Report. 'C'
General Remarks. {{TABLE TEXT}} ' During his posting at C.I.A. From 22nd July, 1981 to 15th September, 1981 he aid fouling. Not a single case he traced out/worked out/ nor did he recover stolen property of a penny. At the other end he faced a writ petition of High Court and a bailiff of High Court recovered a detenu from the custody of his subordinates due to his fault only."
' The appellant made a representation against these remarks which was rejected by order, dated 10th April, 1982 of D.I.-G., Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i. e. Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G.
Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department, on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant remained posted at C. I. A., Sargodha from 22nd July, 1981 to 23rd October, 1981. During this period he worked under Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad, Inspector C.I.A. (the initiating officer of this A.C.R.) who remained posted there from 22nd July, 1981 to 15th September, 1981 only, the period being less than 3 months. The appellant's counsel has referred to para. 2 of the appeal where full particulars of the posting of the appellant during the year 1981 has been given. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that these facts have been admitted by the respondents through their parawise comments submitted against this para. No, 2 of the appeal. It has been submitted by the appellant's counsel that since the Reporting Officer had not the opportunity of supervising the appellant's work and conduct for a period of 3 months, he was not competent to initiate/write appellant's A.C.R. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the para. 6 of the Standing Order No, 32 issued by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore; The said paragraph is quoted below :- "Minimum period for writing of Reports.-The minimum period during which an Officer is expected to form a judicious opinion about The work of his subordinate for the purpose of writing a report on his work and conduct has been prescribed as 3 months .The report recorded in respect of period less than minimum prescribed period should be ignored."
' Concluding his arguments it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant had worked for a period less than 3 months under the Reporting Officer concerned he was prohibited to write any report in respect of the appellant. Thus, the impugned adverse remarks are incompetent, unlawful and be quashed.
6. The learned District Attorney was directed to rebut the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant specially the competency of the Reporting Officer for initiating of this A. C. R.. The period being less than 3 months but the learned District Attorney could not successfully rebut the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record so produced by the representative of the respondents at the time of hearing of this case which clearly indicated that the appellant worked for a period less than 3 months under the Reporting Officer i. e, Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad, Inspector for the period from 22nd July, 1981 to 15th September, 1981 only, hence the Reporting Officer was not competent to initiate the adverse remarks so contested by the appellant for the period 22nd July, 1981 to 23rd October, 1981 as his period was less than 3 months i. e. The appellant remained actually serving under him from 22nd July, 1981 to 15th September, 1981 and no report for the period less than 3 months could not at all be written by him as per para. 6 of the Standing Order No, 32 issued by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore so relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant as mentioned in para. 5 of this judgment. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the adverse remarks so conveyed to the appellant are redundant, without any jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.
8. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that the appeal is accepted and the adverse remarks for this period from 22nd July, 1981 to 23rd October, 1981 so conveyed to the appellant are expunged from his A. C. R.
' There are no orders as to cogs.