Noor Khan, S.I. No, 92/R has filed this' appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi and Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks conveyed to him vide letter dated 11-3- 1987 be expunged and order dated 29-8-1988 passed by respondent No, 2 rejecting his representation be set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was communicated following adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the year 1985:-- "15. Integrity Controversial".
A mature and seasoned Police Officer who knows the Police job well. However, his integrity was reported to be controversial."
The appellant filed a representation before respondent No, 2 which was rejected vide his order dated 29-8-1988, hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney at length and perused the service record of the appellant with care.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks conveyed to the appellant are against law and facts as well as vague in nature. He vehemently contended that the adverse remars are not supported by any cogent evidence and material available on record.
Learned District Attorney strongly contested and opposed the plea so taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the remarks are quite in accordance with law and facts of the case and may be allowed to stand on the A.C.R. of the appellant.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the remarks "Integrity controversial" is not supported by any specific complaint or material available on file. The remarks are vague and indefinite. The respondents have failed to disclose his source of information both in the report as well as in the written objections submitted before the Tribunal. Even there is nothing on record to substantiate these remarks. I am not convinced by the stand taken by the respondents and hardly find any justification to maintain such baseless remarks, to tarnish the record of the appellant. If a Government servant is branded to be not a man of integrity mere writing in the A.C.Rs, cannot be considered as a whole truth. Authority is vested with ample powers to proceed against him under the rules. The Reporting Officer was in contact with him, his other colleagues and the public-at-large and this finding must be on solid proof. The respondents have failed to point out that there was any complaint against the appellant by the public or there was any other allegation regarding his integrity. There was no counselling or warning to the appellant by the respondents during this period, therefore, I see no reason to uphold the remarks which is not supported by any sort of complaint or material unrebuttable on file.
6. In the light of the above discussion, I accept the appeal, set aside the I impugned orders and direct that the impugned adverse remarks be expunged C from the A.C.R. of the appellant. There is no order as to costs.