' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Qazi Saleem Bakhtiar, D.S.P presently A/D.I.-G., D.G. Khan Range, D.G. Khan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks conveyed by letter dated 15th March, 1983, as well as appellate order dated 12th July, 1984, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that by letter dated 15th March, 1983 the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks from his A.C.R. For the year 1982 :- "Mr. Saleem Bakhtiar was holding charge of one Wing of the Force at Lahore. A number of incidents were reported where the men under his command failed to rise equal to the onerous duties entrusted to them. Welfare aspect of the personnel was also not well looked after. He hardly makes the grade for higher appointment."
' The appellant filed a representation dated 21st April, 1983, in which he rebutted the impugned adverse remarks and submitted that the same were vague and factually incorrect. He made second representation but the same was rejected on 12th July, 1984, which has been communicated to the appellant by letter dated 23rd July, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire Force under the appellant's command at Lahore was posted at Standing had sorted out the matter by compensating the person who had lost the Transistor Radio.
9. With regard to the assessm ent of the countersigning authority that supervision of the appellant was loose. He has mentioned that on two occasions the countersigning officer had personally found the Inspector Incharge turning up late on duty, the plea of the appellant was that such like incidents were never brought to his notice by the Commandant or Deputy Commandant particularly when the appellant was seated 7/8 miles away from Fort in Qurban Lines. He has submitted 70 Daily Diary Reports which were got entered in Fort Guard RoznamclL. By appellant for consideration. We are also satisfied that there is ample documentary evidence on record in the form of affidavits Annexure XLI, Annexures U, V, W. Y. Z. Z.2 etc. To show that there was hardly any laxity Of control or deterioration of relation between the P.R.P. Or Special Branch so mentioned by the countersigning authority. Among these Annexures, Annexure U is worthy of consideration as this affidavit has been signed by no body less than the rank of Superintendent of Police, who has categorically declared that on the whole P. R. P. Force was working with diligence, discipline and vigilance during the tenure of the appellant and at all occasions nothing came to his notice that the appellant and his subordinates had strained relations with the Special Branch of which he was Incharge at that particular time. Similarly the other affidavit also pointed to the fact that the appellant had been doing his duty honestly and with care.
10. In the face of the voluminous documents on record so produced by the learned counsel for the appellant, what we find is that the countersigning authority had given certain instances without providing the details of the same. Thus we have no alternative but to hold that the assessment made by the countersigning authority was against the instructions laid down in this behalf in the A.
C. Rs, form and the same cannot be maintained, particularly when the appellant's immediate superior Deputy Commandant gave him an excellent chit.
11. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks made by the countersigning authority in the A. C. R. Of the appellant for the year 1982, be expunged. There will be no order as to costs.