' Kh. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF (MEMBER).--Ghulam Muhammad, A.S.I. No, 38/F of Faisalabad District has filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and has impleaded the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad as respondents.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Afzal Sepoy No, 2325560 of 41-Punjab Regiment appeared before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and complained that the appellant received a sum of Rs,500 as illegal gratification and similarly on the same day Sepoy Mumtaz Hussain of 5 Sind Regiment also made a complaint of corruption that the appellant received a sum of Rs,1,400 as illegal gratification for the release of their relatives. The preliminary enquiry was held by D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Jaranwala, who established the charge. However, during the course of regular enquiries the appellant was able to win the witnesses, as reported by S.P., Faisalabad vide his memo. Dated 13-71985. Though the charge was not proved because of resiling of the Sepoys from their original statements yet the S.P., Faisalabad concluded that according to the circumstances the A.S.I. Did accept the bribe. The appellant filed an appeal to the D.I.-G.
Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad who passed the following orders:- "A.S.I. Ghulam Muhammad No, 38/F has submitted a representation for expunction of the following adverse remarks recorded in his confidential report for the year 1985:- 'Departmental enquiry instituted against him during the year? Nature of allegations and results.
During the course of regular enquiries the accused official was able to win the witnesses, as reported by S.P. Faisalabad vide his memo. No, 3581/HC, dated 13-7-1985. Though the charge was not proved because of resiling of the Sepoys from their original statements, yet the S.P. Concluded that according to the circumstances the A.S.I. Did accept the bribe.
3. From examination of the papers it is evident that the above remarks were recorded after considering all the pros and cons of the case. There is no ground to accept the representation. The adverse remarks will continue to reflect in character roll of the representations."
3. We have made deep appraisal of the entire record and attendant circumstances of the case.
Firstly there is no material on record to prove that the appellant has accepted the bribe and the witnesses resoled from their original statements. Furthermore, the appellant was exonerated by the Superintendent of Police as well as the D.I.-G. Faisalabad Range and there was no justification to make adverse entries against the appellant. Thus the charge against the appellant is not proved.
4. In the light of the foregoing discussion the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.