MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Jehan Khan DSP has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. In which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar, I.G. Of Police. Punjab, Lahore and DIG of Police, Bahawalpur as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks conveyed to him vide letter dated 27.12.1987 be expunged and order dated 2.10.1988 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting his representation be set aside.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant was communicated the following adverse remarks in his ACR for the period from 8.2.1986 to 31.12.1986: ((Table))PART - III
12. Behaviour with public B low average.
PART - V
(a) Pen picture: A number of people made complaints of Corruption against him from Minchinabad ' Sub-Division.
PART - VI
(c) interrity Reported to be corrupt ((Table End))
The appellant filed a representation before respondent No.2 which was rejected vide. His order dated 2.10.1988. Hence this appeal.
3. We 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.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that adverse remarks conveyed to the appellant are malafide and that the appellant has been exonerated of the charges levelled against him. The learned Distt. Attorney strongly contested and opposed the plea so taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the adverse remarks under appeal in the light of the written objections filed on behalf of respondents be allowed to stand on the ACR of the appellant.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and also examined the service record of the appellant and written objections filed by the respondents minutely and find that the appellants counsel has failed to establish by means of any evidence his main contention that the impugned adverse remarks were based on mala fide. In their written objections filed by the respondents No.1 & 3 they have stated that it was an incontrovertible fact that appellant was the and again directed verbally and in writing to maintain his reputation in general public but he did not pay heed towards their lawful orders and per force the impugned adverse remarks were recorded in the ACR of the appellant. According to the respondents the appellant broke all records of corruption and misbehaviour with the general public throughout the period under report. The reporting officer/respondent No.1 had directed the appellant for amelioration through letters No.450/ST dated 3.5.86, 506/Steno dated 17.5.86, 852/Steno dated 28.8.86 and 1012/Sleno dated 18.12.86 but the appellant utterly failed to mend his ways. The reporting officer made a complaint against the appellant to the concerned authority in writing on which the appellant was proceeded against departmentally and was consequently reduced in the scale by to stages by the I.G. Of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 29.4.1988. This punishment was however set aside by the Home Secretary, but doubtlessly the appellant while posted as SDPO Minchinabad had gained ill repute and misbehaved with the general public and had proved stigma on the face of police force at that the and venue. According to the respondents the appreciation letters were issued because his working during campaign against anti-social elements was just satisfactory and that Muharram-ul-Harram had passed peacefully and thus these letters did not prove his honesty and fair dealing with the public in any manner. Moreover, the appreciation letters were not issued for his individual performance but for the total working of his subordinates.
6. During the period under report the appellant was found not only guilty of enjoying bad reputation for corruption but also for misuse of authority and lack of control over his subordinates.
While countersigning the above mentioned ACR of the appellant the DIG Bahawalpur Range/Respondent No.3 had added the following remarks: "Professionally quite average. May give better performance in intelligence agencies".
In his written objections respondent No.1/reporting officer has asserted that the integrity of the appellant was adjudged as: " Reported to be corrupt".
Because a number of complaints of corruption were received against the appellant during his tenure of posting as SDPO Minchinabad.
7. During hearing the appellant's counsel has failed to rebut the above narrated contentions/submissions of the respondents made through their written objections by means of any convincing arguments or evidence.
8. In the light of above discussion we see no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by respondents. Consequently we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.