' This appeal was brought by the appellant Akhtar Ali, Sub-Inspector Police, against adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. For the period from 21-5-1985 to 31-12-1985. The remarks were:- {{TABLE}} "Departmental enquiry instituted He was arrested in case against him during the year. F.I.R. No, 166/85 under Nature of allegations and result. Section 302/34/330/201/334, P.P.0 . , P. S. Rejana and has since been challaned. A show-cause notice is pending against him for above misconduct.
5(a) Investigation of crime against Below average. Property.
(b)
(c) #TBS
(d) Below average. Below average. Below average. Below average. Bad.
(e) #TBE
(f) Preventing action and action under Local and Special Laws.
(g) Number and percentage of conviction in Hudood cases.
12(a) Readiness to accept responsibility.
(b) Readiness to expose subordinates.
14(a) Relations with public.
(b) Relations with collegues. Bad.
15. Integrity. Controversial.
17.Class of report. 'C' {{TABLE}} ' Unfit for further promotion has reached his ceiling. Fit for retention after 25 years. Unfit.
18. General remarks: ' He alongwith his staff killed one Bashir Oad with torture and later on disposed of his dead body. He is most irresponsible Officer who shirks from responsibility. He brought very bad name to department and also tarnished the image of the Police Force."
' Later he was able to get the remarks recorded in para. 18 of the Report expunged through a representation made by him to the I.-G.P. However, the remaining remarks were left unattended and hence the instant appeal before this Tribunal.
2. Mr. Rehman for the appellant contended that the remarks were the result of an allegation levelled against him for having killed one Bashir Oad while in his custody and that since he was later acquitted by a Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction, there was left no basis for retaining them on the record. He adverted attention to his assertion made in ground 17 of the memo. Of appeal wherein it was claimed that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not consider excellent A.C.R./performance before and after the impugned A.C.R. I have perused tike written objections filed by the Department to see whether really the appellant's A.C.Rs./performance before and after the impugned remarks were excellent. The Department took no exception to the appellant's assertion made in this behalf. The corollary, therefore, was that his record otherwise throughout his career was unblemished. Reliance was placed upon 1988 PLC 415 holding that any singular or isolated bad report may be expunged. Mr. Rehman further submitted that only 2 years after recording those remarks, the appellant was confirmed as Sub-Inspector and was even selected for posting in the Eagles Squad. Lastly he urged that the entire A.C.R. Was based upon the circumstance in which the appellant had to face a criminal trial as an accused. He was strongly of the view that no such remarks, stemming from a pending enquiry or trial, should have been recorded as the rule was that only the final result thereof should have been annexed to the personal file of the civil servant.
3. Learned D.A. On the other hand opposed the above arguments by pointing out that there were many shortcomings in the appellant's performance and that the remarks in dispute were amply justified. According to him, this was the reason that even the I.-G.P. Allowed these remarks to stay on while one of them relating to the alleged killing by the appellant of Bashir Oad, was removed.
4. There appears to be no denial of the fact that the impugned remarks were evoked by the appellant's involvement in the murder of the Oad in his custody. He had to face trial before a Criminal Court. The rule on the point clearly envisages that no adverse remarks shall be recorded in the A.C.R. Until the trial was finally concluded, and even thereafter, only the final result thereof has to be appended to the servant's personal file. That the remarks in question were the result of aforesaid incident, was amply borne out by the fact that otherwise the appellant's record throughout was unblemished. Next when he earned acquittal, it should have been accepted in its entirety so that the remaining remarks which appeared to be relatable to the incident, as well should have been removed. Counsel criticised the half-way approach to the matter made by the I.-G.P. In removing a part of the remarks and leaving the rest intact which was neither here nor there.
5. Since it comes out that the appellant's performance before and after the said incident was excellent, it would be iniquitous to mar his record by such solitary or isolated report which really was not in line with his performance throughout. Lately he was confirmed in spite of the remarks in question and even selected for what may be called an elite posting. This was really something credible. It obviously creates an impression that even the Department was lukewarm in treating this report as bad as that. His confirmation as Sub-Inspector soon after initiation of the report was not something light. The rule cited above seems to be fully applicable to the circumstances of this appeal. Consequently there remains no justification for keeping these remarks on the appellant's record. The appeal is allowed and the impugned remarks are expunged.