' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-- Mr. Zia Ahmad Bokhari, Inspector, F.I.A. Zonal Office, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director, Immigration and Anti-Smuggling, F.I.A., Islamabad and the Additional Director-General, F.I.A., Islamabad as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks for the year 1982 communicated to him by the Director-General, Immigration and Anti-Smuggling, F.I.A. Vide his office letter, dated 22-3-1983 be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as Incharge Checkpost and Passport Cell, Lahore from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1982, his work and conduct was assessed by S. Mahmood All Shah, Deputy Director, Immigration and Anti-Smuggling, Federal Investigation Agency, Lahore, who recorded his confidential report. This report was countersigned by Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Director, Immigration and Anti-Smuggling, Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad.
However, by the letter, dated 22-3-1983 he was communicated these adverse remarks which are given hereunder:- 'Integrity ................ Corrupt'
General remarks. ' but unfortunately has been indulging in corruption both as Incharge I. & A.S. Check Post, Railway Station, as well as Passport Cell, Lahore."
Since the representation of the appellant did not bear any fruit. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Mr. Jamil Tahir, Inspector, F.I.A. Was working as the second Incharge under the appellant who happened to be the younger brother of Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Director, F.I.A. It has been argued that the remarks are mala fide because Jamil Tahir, Inspector was involved in a departmental enquiry on the allegations of allowing one Afghan National entry into Pakistan, which had already been refused by the appellant being the Incharge. Mr. Jamil Tahir was alleged to have shown this favour after getting Rs,400 as illegal gratification. It has been asserted by the appellant's counsel that the appellant had given evidence against Jamil Tahir. As a result thereof Mr. Ahmad Saeed, Assistant Director vide his report, dated 14-12-1981 held him guilty. Since Manzoor Ahmad was his real brother so he has given adverse remarks as the first countersigning officer due to this grudge although he had no direct knowledge about the performance and conduct of the appellant. He has also submitted that the appellant had raided Mehfil Cinema, Lahore and had arrested 16 persons on the allegation of Gambling. According to him this Cinema is owned by the brother-in-law of Manzoor Ahmad, Director F.I.A. This was another reason which annoyed Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Director F.I.A. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that even otherwise these remarks are factually incorrect. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted by Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate has controverted these arguments and submitted that the remarks are correct which have been justified by the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. He has also argued that the first countersigning officer i,e, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad had given the adverse remarks to the appellant which have superseded the remarks given by the Deputy Director, Mr. S. Mahmood Ali Shah.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record. The Annual Confidential Report for the year 1982 was initiated by Syed Mahmood Ali Shah, Deputy Director, F.I.A. (I. & A.S.), Lahore who had given the appellant (A) report and had also adjudged him as honest against column No,15 of the A.C.R. In the column No, 18 relating to general remarks he has given the following remarks:- "A smart, intelligent and experienced and disciplined officer. Well acquainted with his job. He spent most of the time at Check-posts where he exhibited punctuality, enforced discipline and maintained record well. He remained posted Incharge in Passport Cell, Lahore for about 2 months.
During that time he investigated 2 cases, conducted 6 enquiries organised 7 Raids and also arrested 2 P.Os. Nothing adverse was established against him during the period under report."
' We find that when this report came before Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Director F.I.A. (I.& A.S.), he changed the entry against column No, 15 and dubbed the appellant as 'Corrupt' and changed the classification of report from 'A' to 'B' i,e, , average. In the column of General Remarks, he has given the following remarks which are essential to be incorporated for arriving at a just decision of the case:- "Mr. Zia is an efficient, effective and experienced Investigator (But unfortunately has been indulging in corruption both as Incharge I. & A.S. Checkpost, Railway Station as well as Passport Cell, Lahore).
Although he would have deserved an 'A' report, yet, keeping in view his controversial integrity, I am classifying his report as 'B'.
(Underlining is ours),
6. From the quotations reproduced in the aforegoing para. We find that the officer who was immediate Incharge of the appellant had not only found him an honest officer but had classified his report as 'Good'. He had particularly emphasised the facts that nothing adverse was established against him during the period under report which makes it abundantly clear that the appellant was never involved in corrupt practices. He is the officer who was immediate Incharge of the appellant and he was best judge to assess the work and conduct of the appellant. On the other hand we find that the Director has very reluctantly recorded the remarks that the appellant have been involved in corruption and has also stated that the appellant would have deserved 'A' report but he classified his report as 'B' keeping in view his controversial integrity. It is surprising that this Countersigning Officer who is of the rank of Director, F.I.A. (I.& A.S.), has not given any particular incidence, or enquiry or complaints regarding involvement of the appellant in corruption. Thus, we hold that the remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer are not justified. From the perusal of the enquiry report submitted by Mr. Ahmad Saeed, Assistant Director to the Deputy Director on 14- 12-1981, we find that the appellant had appeared as a witness against Mr. Jamil Tahir, Inspector of Police. The said Enquiry Officer had concluded that the said Inspector alongwith his other two subordinates had got a sum of Rs,400 as illegal gratification from the Afghan National and had permitted him to enter Pakistan without making any entry in the relevant Register. The appellant's counsel in his arguments has pointed out that one Jamil Tahir is the brother of the countersigning officer. Similarly from the copy of the report No,38, dated 2-1-1978 of Police Station, Qila Gujar Singh, Lahore Annexure 'B' it appears that the appellant had raided Mehfil Cinema and had arrested 15 persons gambling there. This Cinema is stated to be in the ownership of brother-in-law of Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Director, F.I.A. Both these instances are relating to the period prior to the period under report. Thus, we can safely hold that Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Director, F.I.A. (I.& A.S.), the Countersigning Officer, acted mala fide in recording uncalled for adverse remarks against the appellant.
7. In view of the above analysis we accept the appeal and direct that the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the period from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1982 and communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 22-3-1983 be expunged from his Charactor Roll.
There will be no order as to costs.