Find a Lawyer

Case No. 269/1552 of 1981, decided on 28th August 1982.

‑S. 4 read with Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 2 (2) Appeal‑Limitation‑No provision of departmental appeal or review in relevant Service Rules‑Civil servant entitled to one representation‑Limitation for appeal starts from date of such representation or order thereon‑Appeal against adverse remark: in A.C.R.‑First representation to next higher departmental authority rejected after due consideration and keeping in view detailed justification given by reporting officer‑Appellant continued in making further re presentations to still higher authorities‑Limitation for appeal, in circumstances, reckonable from date of order on first representation and further representations could not extend limitation‑Appeal having been filed much after prescribed limitation, in circumstances rejected.

S. Abid Nawaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema District Attorney for Respondents.

Khizar Hayat Bhatti, A. S. I., Police Line, Gujranwals has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks as contained in his Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the year 1977 passed by Mohammad Anwar Mirza the then S. P., Guranwala be expunged and has rightful position be given to him.

3. Brief history of the case is that Khizar Hayat BMW, A.S.I., No. 83/L was conveyed the following adverse remarks for his A.C.R. pertaining to the year 1977 vide Memo. No. 254/CRC dated 27‑9‑1978 from the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Gujranwala Range as follows:‑------

"Readiness to expose ... Below average

subordinates

Sex Morality ... Controversial

Drinking Habits ... Controversial

Integrity ... Corrupt

Class of report . "C"

"is wolf in lambs grab, morality and ... Controversial."

integrity.

The appellant appealed to the D.I.G. of Police, Gujranwala Range against these adverse remarks on 27‑9‑1978 by the same was rejected by the D.I.‑G. vide his letter dated 24‑11‑1979. The appellant sent different representations to the officers of the upper hierarchy of Police Department but without success. Hence this appeal.

4. The arguments were put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney but it was concluded that the record of the appellant be perused to come up on definite conclusion regarding these adverse remarks.

5. As per practice of this Tribunal we have very carefully examined his A.C.Rs., his record, also studied the comments offered by the Reporting Officer/Countersigning Officer on his representation regarding expunction of these remarks. The Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Gujranwala Rang while rejecting his representation vide his order No. 23580‑81/CRC dated 24‑11‑1979 has stated : "I have examined the record and also listened to the representationist. The comments given by the Reporting Officer are so well founded and detailed that there is hardly any justification to differ with the remarks of the S. P. Hence rejected." Thus his representation was well considered by his superiors and rejected after due consideration. We have also perused his A. C. Rs. after from the year 1977 onward (for the period 1978 to 1980) which also do not speak good of him fn his A. C. R file, there is also an order of Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala dated 12‑12‑1981 wherein he has been awarded punishment of forfeiture of his two‑year approved service permanently. We have also gone through paragraph 18 of Revised Inspector‑General's Standing Order No. 32, where in sub‑para. (v) it is laid down that no second representation should be entertained unless new facts are brought to light and it has been sub mitted within one month from the date of the order on the first representa tion. In section 21 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 it is also laid down that there is no provision for appeal/review in any service rules a Civil Servant can make a representation. Thus we hold that this Civil Servant has only one right of filing a representation, and the cause of action arises, from the date of the order on his first representation. In the present case, the order on his first representation was passed on 24‑11‑1979, while the present appeal was filed on 26‑5‑1981 to they Punjab Service Tribunal. The appellant was required to file his appeal on the expiry of 90 days from 24‑11‑1979 and within a period of 30 days.

6. Keeping the above analysis in view we conclude and hold that there is no justification for expunction of the adverse remarks given in appellant's Annual Confidential Report for the year 1977. His appeal is dismissed as such as there is no merit in his appeal and is also time barred.

There will be no orders as to cost.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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