Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. 251/A to 251/C of 1978, decided on 10th February, 1980.

‑ Adverse remarks‑Not supported by any instance‑Conduct of official otherwise appreciated by commendation certificates by superior authorities including reporting officer‑Remarks, in circum stances; held, unjustified and expunged‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

‑‑ Adverse remarks‑Reporting officer holding office not for entire period of report‑Not competent to record remarks‑Remarks recorded by such officer expunged‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Syed Abid Hussain Sherazi, Prosecuting Inspector, the appellant, has filed three appeals against the adverse remarks for the following period : (i) 1st January, 1975 to 26th July, 1975 ; (ii) 3rd August, 1975 to 31st December, 1975 ; and (iii) 1st January, 1976 to 20th July, 1976. The parties have been heard.

2. The adverse remarks for the period 1st January, 1975 to 26th July, 1975 were given by Kb. Mohammad Tufail, S. P. Mianwali. The appellant has contended that Kh. Mohammad Tufail took over on 13th February, 1975 and he has given no instance in support of his remarks. The report is in violation of the relevant Government instructions. More over, the appellant was given five commendation certificates by the reporting S. P. besides two cash awards. The District Magistrate or the A. D. C. (G) did not make any complaint against the work of the appellant. In view of the fact that no instance has been quoted by the S. P. and the appellant's work has been otherwise commended, the remarks are unjustified.

3. The adverse remarks for the period 3rd August, 1975 to 31st December, 1975 were given by Mohammad Nawaz Aulakh. S. P., Sargodha The appellant has contended that the remarks were conveyed late, and no opportunity of hearing was granted. The appellant was incharge of Jauharabad Sub‑Division Prosecution Agency and he has urged that he was never adversely commented upon by his superiors but the P. D. S. P. was annoyed with the appellant because he had objected to the submission of challan reports direct to the Courts without the scrutiny of the prosecut ing agency, As a matter of fact, A. C. Jauharabad, has appreciated the work and conduct of the appellant. There seems to be considerable weight in the submission of the appellant and the remarks are expunged.

4. The third period is 1st January, 1976 to 20th July, 1976. Mohammad Nawaz Aulakh was S. P. upto 5th April, 1976 and Mirza Mohammad Anwar was S. P. thereafter. The appellant has urged the same reason as for the earlier period at Jauharabad. About the adverse remarks of the D. I. G. the appellant, has urged that B. A. Malik was D. I. G. only uptil 1st February, 1976 and, therefore, not competent to give remarks for the full period. There is force in the argument of then appellant. The remarks are expunged.

5. The result is that the appeals are accepted and the adverse remarks for the three periods set aside.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.