S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, (CHAIRMAN). --Muhammad Siddique, Sub-Inspector Police, Bhong, District Rahimyar Khan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 2-2-1983, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the representation of the appellant for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. By respondent No. 2 for the period from 21-1-1981. To 26-8-1981, has been rejected. He has impleaded the Deputy Inspector-General Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur and the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside and remarks be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, while working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1981, was given adverse report by the Reporting Officer and the same was conveyed to him under the order of the countersigning officer. The appellant filed representation before respondent No. 2 but the same was rejected, vide his order, dated 2-2-1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department, and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's stay at Dera Nawab Sahib from 21-1-1981 to 27-4-1981 was very short, therefore, to say that he did not prove upto mark, would be unjustified, particularly keeping in view comparative statement showing the exact position of crimes by which such like assessm ent is belied. It has been further argued that during the period the appellant remained posted as S.H.O. Dera Nawab Sahib, only 11 cases were reported out of which 8 cases were successfully investigated and challaned in the Court. He has referred to the record of recovery of stolen property was brilliant. With regard to the remarks about integrity of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the remarks are wholly incorrect and unwarranted, and the same has not been justified. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it was incumbent upon the Reporting Officer to give instance of corruption and malpractice etc. If any, whereas in the present case the remarks are based on rumours, which should not be made basis for such adverse assessment.
6. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the respondents and has prayed that the remarks are justified and may be maintained.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and while going through the dossier of the appellant, find that the appellant was not exonerated while he was so reinstated completely, as his two increments were stopped in the said year. We also further find that the appellant's integrity became controversial when the Reporting Officer found that lot of people were speaking against him, when he was on tour in his area rr is also on record that during his posting at Dera Nawab Sahib, his integrity came into question in case F.I.R. No.26s dated 11-3- 1981 under section 302/436/ 148/149, P.P.C., P.S. Dera Nawab Sahib. An inquiry on the allegation of accepting bribe from the patties was initiated against him, although JA there was no direct evidence yet his conduct was proved to be shady. In these circumstances in which the appellant placed himself, which could have culminated in his dismissal, it would be quite reasonable and justified for the Reporting Officer to keep in mind the background of that episode while assessing his integrity in general. If he had found that there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt, the appellant might have suffered with the penalty of dismissal from service for the same and the correct column would have been to term him as corrupt. In the present circumstances when the appellant was let off due to lack of solid and direct evidence against him but the stink of inquiry was there and it was factually for the Reporting Officer to assume that under the circumstances, which came to his notice during the said' inquiry, the integrity would be of course controversial. In this manners we have no reason to interfere with the assessment made by the Reporting Officers as it was for him to keep over all check of his subordinates and to make up his mind while writing A.C.R. About the entire performance of the said officer under his control.
8. With regard to the performance we have seen the chart so given by the appellant as well as denial of the same so given by the respondents and cannot say with certitude that it can be termed that his performance was not upto the mark. The figure in the chart does not goes to show that the appellant had failed to perform his duty so assigned to him. In view of this controversial position and particularly the fact that the chart has not been denied, we direct that the second part of assessm ent viz. 'his handling of crime and cases as S.H.O. Was not upto the mark' be expunged. However, we maintain the remark regarding his integrity as 'controversial'. There will be no order as to costs.