' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Shah Nawaz Khan, S.I. No, 27/S, Police Lines, Khushab, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and the Superintendent of Police, Khushab as respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the adverse remarks and unfitness for further retention in the department made by respondent No, 2 and rejection of representation by respondent No, 1, dated 10-4-1985 communicated on 17-4-1985. He has prayed that the appeal be accepted and adverse remarks be ordered to be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was given adverse remarks for the year 1984, as under:- Column No, 5(a)
' Rating as crime control Officer Below average.
(a) Investigation of crime against property.
(b) Preventive action under local and special Below average. ' laws.
' Integrity. Controversial.
' Column No, 18 Fitness for retention after 25 years' service. Unfit.
' Column No, 19 ' Class of Report. Below average ' General Remarks: ' A below average Sub-Inspector with controversial integrity. His performance under the head property cases and local and Special Laws was poor. He is unfit for further retention in the Department."
' He made representation against the said remarks which was rejected by the next higher authority.
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 appellant's work during the period of assessm ent could not be considered below average and for this he has relied on documentary evidence produced by him and placed on record. With regard to the integrity portion and his being unfit for retention in service after 25 years' service, it has been submitted that the Reporting Officer has failed to justify the same as he has given no positive instance for the same.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that he would not be in a position to controvert the documents so produced by the appellant placed on record as these clearly indicate that the work so assigned to him was 'duly disposed of by him during his tenure and those cases were left behind when he stood transferred from the said place. However, with regard to the remarks against integrity and his fitness to be retained after 25 years, he has vehemently supported the justification of the Reporting Officer on the ground that Reporting Officer has made the same on his personal knowledge by submitting that in the `Integrity column' the remark was recorded due to consistent complaints. He has submitted that the remarks were not based on any misconception and were given on the basis of cogent grounds.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the documents filed by the appellant with regard to his disposal of work during the period under assessm ent, cannot be controverted by the respondents despite our clear order on 12-3-1986, in which we called upon the respondents to show otherwise. In view of this un controverted fact, we will accept the documents on its face value and would hold that the work of the appellant during the period under assessm ent cannot be considered 'below average' and thus direct that the remarks against columns 5(a) and (b) be expunged.
8. However, with regard to the observation about integrity of the appellant, we do not find any justification to disagree with the assessment of the Reporting Officer, which is made on his personal knowledge, by submitting that he received a number of complaints against the appellant and his overall assessm ent was that his integrity was controversial. While going through the earlier record of the appellant, we find that this trait did exist in certain periods although in certain years he was considered honest. This being the position, we do not find any justification to disagree with the Reporting Officer, who was best judge of this trait, so found by him during his tenure of the service under the said Reporting Officer. The second observation 'unfit for further retention in service' is also subjective assessm ent of the Reporting Officer, who would be the best judge of the suitability of this assessm ent.
9. The result is we uphold these remarks as justified and dismiss the appeal in this respect accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.