MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN - Abdul Munir, DSP has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Home Secretary, I. G. Of Police, Punjab, DIG of Police, Multan Range, Multan and SSP Multan as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant had prayed that the impugned adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R, commencing from 10-1-1987 to 23-10-87 be expunged and the order dated 19-1-1989 passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was conveyed the following remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1987 vide D.O. Letter No. 2459/S-I dated 22-3- 1988:- PART-II
6. Appearance and bearing - Below average.
PART-III
5. Ability to produce - Below average. constructive ideas.
PART-IV
6. Work (a) Out put - Below average.
(b) Quality - Below average.
PART-V.
(a) Pen picture.
Not professionally well although has long tenure of service. His standard of working in CIA was not upto the mark. Not fit for the post of SDPO.
(b) Counselling.
He was verbally advised to improve the working of CIA and his conduct as well but did not accept this advice.
(c) Assessm ent of performance.
During his posting as DSP CIA in this District he proved to be an inefficient and weak officer. He could not exercise effective control over his subordinates. Needs lot of training yet.
PART-VI
(c) Integrity. - Corrupt.
3. The appellant filed a representation before respondent No. 2 which was rejected vide impugned order dated 19.1.1989. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the service record of the appellant with care with the assistance of the representative of the Department.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant's conduct during the period from 1.10.87 to 23.10.1987 remained good and he was illegally declared corrupt officer in the ACR for the year 1987. On the other hand the learned District Attorney seriously opposed the appeal and argued that the impugned adverse remarks are fully justified in the light of the comments/report furnished on behalf of respondents and may be allowed to stand in the ACR of the appellant.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the impugned performance evaluation report for the period from 10.1.87 to 23.10.1987 on the working of the appellant was recorded by the respondent No. 4 keeping in view the general reputation of the appellant as well as personal knowledge gained by the Reporting Officer (Respondent No. 4). He was found negligent on most of the important assignments. More over, the appreciation letters (to only) were not issued to the appellant for his sole personal achievement/performance but on the basis of joint efforts of his subordinates in achieving the goal. Besides these letters were issued for particular campaigns and not for over all performance during the period under report. Though there was no written complaint of corruption against the appellant but his integrity was categorised on the basis of his general reputation as well as personal knowledge gained by the Reporting Officer/Respondent No. 4 through reliable sources, and the impugned adverse remarks were recorded keeping in view the general reputation, capability and overall working of the appellant. We also find that the appellant's departmental representation was rightly rejected by respondent No. 2 on merits, Consequently we find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by respondents and as such the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.