' ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant, Muhammad Benaras, while serving as Sub- Inspector Police received adverse remarks in his confidential report for the period 16-2-1984 to 6- 12-1984. He represented against these remarks but the representation was turned down vide orders dated 28-5-1986. He then filed an appeal before this Tribunal which was dismissed on 61-1988 for non-prosecution. His application under Order 9, rule 4 read with section 151, C.P.C. For restoration of the appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 22-2-1988. The appellant then filed a civil appeal against the aforesaid judgment dated 22-2-1988 of the Tribunal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which was allowed by their Lordships and the case was remanded to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the law.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the relevant record produced before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that throughout his career there has been no complaint and no enquiry was ever held against the appellant and that his service record was blotless'. He further submitted that the impugned report written by Mirza Muhammad Yasin, the then S.P. Attock, was the only adverse report which he had received during his entire career extending over more than 20 years in the Police Department. He pointed out that the two reports for the years 1982 and 1983, preceding the impugned report, were good and had been written by the same reporting officer i,e, Mirza Muhammad Yasin, when he was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Survey S.B. Lahore and the appellant was working under him. On his transfer as S.P., Attock, Mirza Muhammad Yasin also got the appellant transferred to Attock where the former reportedly developed certain differences with the appellant and, as alleged by the latter, gave him the impugned adverse remarks in his confidential report which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, are uncalled for, without substance, mala fide and unjustified.
3. The learned D.A. Did not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the remarks were based on facts and personal observations of the reporting officer as is clearly established in the parawise comments submitted by the latter as also the parawise comments/written objections filed by the respondents.
4. Following are the adverse remarks which the appellant has earned from his reporting officer in his confidential report for the period 16-2-1984 to 6-12-1984.
"Preventive action and action under Below average. Local and special laws. Integrity Controversial General Remarks: ' An officer who talked and boasted much but did little to carry out his duties efficiently, he is a tactless officer who earned the of his immediate officer as well as his juniors. He lacked the art of public dealing. He was artful in nothing except in lying and exaggerating things. He is not fit to hold the charge of a Police Station."
5. A close examination of the confidential reports earned by the appellant since he joined service in 1966 indicates that besides the above impugned report he had earned only one adverse report earlier on in 1978 which covered the period 19-8-1978 to 31-12-1978 in which his integrity was considered as 'not known' and in the general remarks it was reported that the appellant had "failed as Inspector P.S. Cantt. Multan and was reverted. Is careless and inefficient". All other reports from 1966 to 1983 and then from 1985 to 1989 are good/satisfactory and there is no complaint against his integrity. It is, therefore, surprising that the appellant, who had put in about 18 years service and had earned 20 reports wherein his work has been appreciated and he has been considered honest, should suddenly become totally inefficient and dishonest.
6. The two deports pertaining to the years 1982 and 1983, of which particular mention has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant, are on the whole good reports and carry no adverse remarks. The following comparison of these reports with the impugned report brings out the sudden and inexplicable deterioration in the work and conduct of the appellant and the sheer absurdity of the phenomenon itself in bold relief: Column 1982 1983 1984 5(b) Prevention action and Blank Blank Below average action under local and special laws.
14(b) Relations with colleagues. Good Good Bad 15 Integrity Honest Honest Controversial.
7. The general remarks given by the reporting officer in the ACRs of 1982 and 1983 were also quite favourable to the appellant whereas in 1984 the appellant somehow lost favour with the reporting officer who gave him adverse general remarks. It is simply intriguing to find that a person who was considered honest, neat and clean in his habits and who had been taking keen interest in his professional work and duties during the previous two years should now be doing "little to carry out his duties efficiently". The reporting officer found him as having neat and clean habits in 1982 but in 1984 he considered that the was artful in anything except in lying and exaggerating things.
8. This sudden transition from one extreme to another and steep fall in the standard and quality of work and conduct of the appellant being against human nature is not understandable particularly when we find that the reports which he received after the impugned report are also satisfactory. In the circumstances, the allegation of malice attributed by the appellant against the reporting officer does not seem to be without substance.
9. Some of the remarks given under the heading 'general remarks' are contrary to and inconsistent with the remarks given in the specific columns. For example in the general remarks it has been stated that the appellant is not fit to hold the charge of a police station whereas in column No, 6 (Rating as SHO) he has been graded as average. In the general remarks it has been remarked that the appellant lacked the art of public dealing whereas in column 14 (Relations with public) the relations have been rated as tolerable. Some other remarks such as "an officer who talked and boasted much but did little to carry out his duties efficiently. He is a. Tactless officer who earned the of his immediate officer as well as his juniors" are remarks which could not be substantiated by the respondents during the course of proceedings before this Tribunal. Not a single incident could be cited by them in support of these remarks. In the parawise comments given by the reporting officer it has been stated that he had called explanation of the appellant which could be checked from the office record,. Yet no documentary evidence was adduced in support of the charge. Similarly, the respondents have failed to bring forth any proof in support of the remark that preventive action and action under local and special laws taken by the appellant during the period under report was below average. The remarks are evidently based on conjectures and surmises.
10. The integrity of the appellant has been rated as 'controversial' by the reporting officer. In support of the remark the reporting officer has stated that the S.P. Of the district is the best person to judge the reputation of an officer working under him. No documentary or eye-witness account is required to adjudge the officer's integrity in the ACR". He has further stated that "there was a general complaint of his being an officer of ill-repute". This is plain admission of the fact that the reporting officer had no credible evidence or material to doubt the integrity of the appellant and the remark is, therefore, without any basis.
11. As some of the general remarks are inconsistent with the remarks in the specified columns or are vague and not based on any record or positive evidence and since the same reporting officer had given him two good reports consecutively immediately preceding the impugned report and the sudden fall in the performance and conduct of the appellant could not be explained or substantiated, we .Proceed to accept the appeal and direct that the adverse remarks in the confidential report of the appellant for the period 16-2-1984 to 6-12-1984 be expunged. There are no orders as to costs.