MOHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Munawar Ahmed Leghari, Inspector of Police, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the I.G. Of Police, Punjab, Lahore, D.I.G, of Police, Bahawalpur Range, and Foyyaz Ahmed Mir formerly Superintendent of Police Bahawalpur as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks pertaining to the period from 1.1.1987 to 14.9.87 conveyed to him be expunged and the order dated 2.6.90 whereby the representation of the appellant was dismissed be set aside.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant was communicated the following adverse remarks in his Confidential report mentioned above: ((Table Start))1. Devtion to duty.
2. Drill and discipline.
3. Behaviours with public
4. Integrity
5. Performance and crime control officer 6 In detection of cases traced.
7. Recovery of stolen property.
8. Rating as an SHO if so appointed.
9. Fitness for retention after 25 years.
10. Fitness for promotion
11. Class of report Below average. Below average Below average 'D' (Poor) Below average Poor Poor Poor Unfit Unfit((Table End))
12. GENERAL REMARKS.
A discredit to the Department. No frequently was found guilty of burking, was reputed to be very corrupt and was totally indiscipline. There was a strike against his misbehaviour and misdeeds. Not for SHO posting.
The appellant filed a representation before respondent No.1 which was rejected on 2.6.90. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the parties at length with the assistance of the departmental representatives.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the adverse remarks conveyed to the appellant for the period commencing from 1.1.87 to 14.9.87 are out of malice and without justification. Conversely the learned District Attorney has seriously opposed the appeal and submitted that the remarks arc fully justified and may be allowed to stand.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the parlies and find that the appellant had to be related at different places because wherever he was posted he created problems for the senior officers. Moreover according to the figures with regard to appellants work and conduct at Police Stations Dera Nawab Sahib and Iazman, there were complaints from public and at Police Station Yazman oven a strike was organised against the appellant's misbehaviour and highhandedness. This brought a bad name for the entire police force. It has also been stated that there was no problem in Usman area during the posting of the previous SHO. It is also noteworthy to mention that the appellant under police proceedings was punished seven times during the period under report. It was on account of his conduct and reputation that even the Range DIG described him as unfit for posting as SHO. I also find that the assessment of the Reporting officer in rating the appellant "Poor" as SHO is correct as three thefts were reported in the area of Police Station Yazman but he refused to register the cases and it was only on the intervention of the senior officer who got the cases registered and the situation was saved. The drill and discipline were assessed as "Below Average" because the appellant had never attended any weekly parade in Police Lines and he was frequently found absent from his place of posting. As such his discipline also remained unsatisfactory. The reporting officer (respondent No.3) has based his report regarding fitness for promotion and retention in service beyond fitness for promotion and retention in service beyond 25 years on the fact that he was reported to be correct, his integrity was categorised as 'D' and behaviour of appellant with public as "Below Average". Respondent No.1 while disposing of the representation of the appellant has thoroughly examined the service record of the appellant and has rightly rejected the departmental appeal on merits. On scrutiny of the record I find that the present appeal is devoid of any cogent reasons as the impugned remarks for the period from 1.1.87 to 14.2.87 were recorded purely on merits. Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal which stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Parlies to be informed.