' AKHTAR HASSAN (CHAIRMAN).---According to the amended memo. Of appeal, the appellant Hussain Ali ASI was given the following adverse remarks for the period 1-1-1984 to 10-7-1984 by the A.S.P. Headquarters, Sheikhupura (respondent No, 3): ' General Remarks ' Received application of corruption and transferred to Police Lines.
' Those were communicated to him on 8-10-1984 (Annex. 'A') whereupon he preferred a representation (Annex. 'B') to the D.I.-G. (respondent No, 2) who turned it down vide his order dated 25-8-1987 (Annex. 'C'). Aggrieved by those orders he filed the present appeal before this Tribunal urging, firstly, that he did not work as a field officer at the place of his posting (Thana City, Sheikhupura) all that while as he was away to Sihala taking training from 2-1-1984 till 27-3-1984 and thus his field work only for a short period of three months was unjustifiably extended to cover all those six months; secondly that the break-up of his performance (Annex. 'D') for the three months revealed that by all standards he was second to none; thirdly that the remarks were indeed based upon a complaint (Annex. `E') which was ultimately found out to be false in the opinion (Annex. 'F) of the very Reporting Officer; and lastly that he always discharged his duties during his eight years service honestly and diligently maintaining an unblemished record supported by no less than 16 meritorious certificates and awards. He asserted that there was no evidence whatsoever against him to substantiate the remarks and prayed for their expunction.
2. In their written comments, the respondents conceded the assertion made by the appellant in the memo. Of appeal. However, it was maintained that his overall working was below average and that he was transferred to the police lines on the basis of an application of corruption submitted by one Laras Masih who might have been subsequently influenced by the appellant to give it up. This was how they explained that the aforesaid application was ultimately found to be treated as baseless and filed.
3. Counsel for the appellant took up the plea in the course of arguments that the adverse remarks in question could not have been recorded by the A.S.P./SDPO Headquarters, Sheikhupura, because according to SI. Nos. 21 and 22 of Appendix VIII of Revised I.-G.'s Standing Order No, 32 it was the S.P.
Alone who could act as Reporting Officer for ASIs in the District. This ground was not specifically taken up either before the departmental Appellate Authority or in the present memo. Of appeal and therefore the learned District Attorney strenuously objected to its introduction for the first time before the Tribunal. He placed reliance upon 1988 SCMR 803 (Re: Abdul Ghafoor v. D.I.-G. And others) 1989 SCMR 1967 (Re: Dr. Muhammad Hanif Arif v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab) wherein the ground of incompetence on the part of Authority passing an order was not permitted at the late stage because it was not taken up at the earliest. In reply MA. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant canvassed vehemently that the plea against assumption of jurisdiction could be taken up at any stage as it went to the root of exercise of jurisdiction and further that it being a pure question of law involving no enquiry as to determine any factual issue, it was always open to the party concerned to agitate it even at late stage and sought support from PLD 1989 SC 360 (362)
(Re:Shagufta Begum v. I.T.O., Circle XI, Zone B, Lahore; Abdul Majid v. Mst. Anwar Begum) PLD 1992 SC 239, (Re: Zafar Haider v. Riaz Mahmud) 1984 SCMR 6'7 (73) (Re: Muhammad Siddique Cheema v.
Government of the Punjab) (Re: Ghulam Fayima v. Rahim Bukhsh). He argued, in addition, that the Appellate Authority could examine with impunity the severity of the punishment on any ground whatsoever and that its power was not hinged round by unnecessary fetters particularly relating to technicalities.
4. There was no denying the fact that the ASP Headquarters was legally incompetent to record the impugned adverse remarks against the appellant. According to the abovementioned I.-G.'s Standing Order No, 32 only the S.P. Is the Reporting Officer for ASIs. The objection seemed to be undefendable and could not be defeated on the ground based on technical objection which was not raised earlier. There was considerable substance in the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that he could raise it before this Tribunal notwithstanding his failure to raise it earlier because it involved wrong assumption of jurisdiction which could always be objected to at any stage of proceedings. The decision referred in the PLD 1989 SC 360 (362) supported the view point of the counsel and hence he was well within his right to urge that the ASP was not empowered to record the appellant's ACR. As a corollary the impugned remarks, therefore have to be struck down.
' There were other good grounds as well to see that the appellant was dealt with rather harshly. All his assertions made in the memo. Of appeal were virtually accepted by the respondents in their comments. The main reason to influence the opinion of the ASP against the appellant was that he was transferred to the Lines on a complaint made by one Laras Masih about his misconduct. The complaint admittedly filed it on the ground that it was baseless. Evidently he should not have been condemned on the ground which ultimately fizzled out resulting in his exoneration. Even otherwise in the matter of complaint, as per Instruction No,28 relating to recording of ACRs the subject- matter of the complaint is not to be recorded in the ACR until it was finally decided and in that case too only the result of the inquiry had to be appended to the personal record of the civil servant. This procedure was not followed here inasmuch as the ASP hurriedly felt influenced by the factum of the complaint which later in his own words turned to be false. He should have rather waited for the result of the inquiry which he was supposed to have made in the context. The Rule in its wisdom prohibits such a hasty conclusion against a subordinate. On this score too, the remarks cannot be sustained.
6. Still further, the appellant claimed to have put in eight years unblemished service. The impugned remarks were said to be the first of their nature and hence called for being looked at skeptically. He made a claim of having secured 16 meritorious certificates and awards all this while. This claim of his was not controverted. Evidently he had a good past which could not be ignored altogether on the strength of a complaint which the Reporting Officer himself noted to be unreal. So was the impression given out by the break-up (Annex. D) of his performance during the short period of three months posted at the City Thana, Sheikhupura. The rest of three months he passed at Sihala.
He did not appear to be over-modest in claiming that his working for such a limited period was unduly made to represent his performance for a much longer period of six months. The detail of different cases he dealt with was not disputed in terms. Manifestly it had the appearance of the appellant doing his job, or making an effort to do his job, with utmost care and caution. We feel describing his performance to be "Below Average" was rather under-rating it. We are not inclined to allow it to stay.
7. Lastly but not the least, a reference was made to 1983 PLC (C.S.) 303 (Re: Ejaz Muhammad Khan v.
Province of Punjab), 1986 PLC (C.S.) 117 (Re: Muhammad Khalid Pervez Uppal v. Chairman, Central Board of Revenue), 1988 PLC 415 (Re: Janas Khan v. D.I.-G., Rawalpindi) and 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1295 (Re: Farooq Ahmed v. S.P., Sahiwal) in which solitary adverse remarks preceded and succeeded by good reports were expunged. We see no reason not to apply the abovementioned rule to the case of the appellant whose record both preceding and succeeding the impugned entry was unblemished.
8. For these reasons we allow the appeal and expunge the remarks in question.
' No order as to costs.