JUDGMENT JUSTICE (RTD) MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal Mr. Muhammad Sadique, SIP Ghotki, District Sukkur has sought expunction of the adverse remarks awarded to him for the year 1987. As disclosed in the memo of appeal, Mr. Noor Ahmed Pechooho, DSP/PSDO Ghotki had initiated the said remarks as reporting officer. They pertained to the period from 13.7.1987 to 31.12.1987 during which the appellant had served as SHO Ghotki under the aforementioned reporting officer. The remarks were conveyed to the appellant through SSP, Sukkur vide IGP's letter No. 10550/S-1/88, dated 27.11.1988. On receipt of the adverse remarks on 13.12.1988, the appellant hastened to file appeal/representation to the IGP for expunction of the same. The said appeal was rejected vide IGP's letter dated 20.9.1990 addressed to the DIGP who vide his endorsement dated 24.9.1990, forwarded a copy thereof to SP/ACE, Sukkur for service on the appellant. He received the said communication on 8.10.1990, Accordingly this appeal was filed on 7.11.1990.
2. We heard the arguments of both the appellant learned counsel and the learned AAG. We also perused the documents relevant for disposal of the appeal.
The adverse remarks sought to be expugned are stated as under:-- ((Table Start))13. 14. #tbs
15. 14.
16. the
17. Rating for morality. -- Controversial.
Relation with
(a) Public: ~ Bad.
(b) (c) tbs
(d)
15. Integrity: General Remarks.
(e) the
(f) Colleagues: - Bad. - Controversial.
"He is neither a good officer nor a good subordinate. He is poor in prevention, detection and investigation of the heniou crimes. He is not trustworthy"((Table End))
While disputing the correctness of the above remark the learned counsel for the appellant bitterly attacked the reporting officer. According to him Mr. Noor Ahmed Pechooho, the then DSP Ghotki who was the author of the controversial ACR had personal bias against the appellant, as the latter had reported to the SSP, Sukkur verbally as well as in writing, that the said DSP had crossed all limits of goods/noble police officer. In support of his arguments the learned counsel referred to some hand written reports both in Urdu and English produced by the appellant at the the of presentation of the appeal. The learned counsel's grievance was that said Mr. Noor Ahmad was shamelessly corrupt and was making unreasonable demands of money from his sub-ordinates including the appellant. In order to earn money, he went on to say, the said DSP adopted all sorts of tactics so much so that he did not hesitate to develop friendly contacts with the criminals, particularly with notorious dacoit Qabil Chachar. The learned counsel also claimed that but for the adverse ACR hereinabove, the appellant's service record has been blotless, rather commendable.
3. In reply to above arguments the learned AAG refuted the wild allegations made against the reporting officer. Reference to the written statement would bring out the appellant's picture totally different from the one depicted by him in the memo of appeal. As per respondents' version of the case unfolded in the written statement, the appellant has been dubbed as corrupt, inefficient and quarrel-some official. He allegedly cut a sorry figure wherever he was posted, quarrelling with every body, spoiling cases and paying no respect to his elders and superior. According to the written statement, the story of dacoit Qabil Chachar has no bearing on the adverse report earned by the appellant who has devised it only to wriggle out from the situation created for him by the said report.
4. We have given our best thought to the above arguments. On our demand, the character Roll of the appellant was made available to us. We have minutely examined the ACR awarded to him for the year 1987. Apart from the DSP who assigned to the appellant the adverse report hereinabove, to SSPs and the DIGP are party to the ACR of the said year. The DIGP obviously agreed with the remarks of SDPO (DSP Noor Ahmed) and desired the same to the conveyed to the appellant. The to SSPs namely Messrs Saleem Akhtar and Fayaz Ahmad Laghari rated him as an average officer.
Such observation certainly did not speak high of the appellant. Besides this, the representation made by the appellant for expunction of the adverse remarks was rejected by the IGP. While rejecting the representation, the IGP made the following observations:-- "(i) DPS have no bearing on the adverse remarks against which the appellant has represented.
(ii) In his representation received by the IGP on 29.1.1989, S.I. Mohammad Sadique Jhamat has appealed against the adverse remarks given by Mr. Noor Mohammad then SDPO, Now-Shero Feroze. I agree with the views expressed by the latter.
(iii) The adverse remarks in the ACR of Inspector Mohammad Sadique for the year 1987 shall hold good. Representation made in this regard is hereby rejected".
5. It is thus clear from the above, that the DSP Noor Ahmed was not alone in holding adverse view about the appellant. The high officers of Police Department of the stature and status of the DIGP and IGP also shared the views of the aforesaid DSP. But the appellant's target was only the above- named DSP. He has made allegations of personal bias against him. However his learned counsel did not utter word in explanation as to why the DIGP and IGP had endorsed the adverse report given to the appellant by the above DSP. In our opinion the officers occupying such high positions were least expected to support the adverse report emanating from officer of lower level without applying their own mind particularly when they were aware that the remark they supported were capable of ruining the future of the appellant. As such their corroboration of the adverse remark was free from any taint.
6. Even against the reporting officer (DSP-Noor Ahmed). The appellant was unable to prove his allegation Excepting some hand written applications addressed to SSP there is nothing on record to prove that the above DSP was in any way biased or prejudiced against the appellant. The said applications were admittedly made by the appellant himself. Moreover they have come from his custody and not from the custody of-the SSP to whom they were addressed. As such they are worthless having no evidentiary value. Even otherwise it does not appeal to reason that during the brief period of five months or so for which the appellant worked under the said DSP, the latter would become so biased against him that he would go so far as to blot his service career by awarding him adverse report. Even the officers who did not subscribe to the adverse remark given to the appellant had assessed him as merely an average officer. It was also not denied that the appellant has faced several departmental enquiries in some of which he had even been punished.
7. In view of above discussion we see no reason interfere with the impugned adverse remarks.
Accordingly appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Given under our hand and the seal of this Tribunal this 25th day of March, 1991 at Sukkur.