Find a Lawyer

Case No. 330/1837 of 1982, decided on 8th August, 1983.

‑‑ Adverse remarks in A. C. R.‑Remarks recorded being influenced by a complaint‑Officer exonerated of allegations in such complaint after inquiry and probe‑Over 211 record satisfactory and officer not habitual of recorded defects‑‑Impugned remarks, in circumstances, held, not justified and directed by Service Tribunal to be expunged‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Muhammad Zaman No. 94/G. L., Sub‑inspector, C. I. A., Hafizabad, has made this‑ appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein be has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala and D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 23rd June, 1981 and 13th April, 1982/2nd June, 1982 be set aside and the adverse remarks be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed following adverse remarks, by the D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, vide his Order No. 316 dated, 23rd June, 1981 :‑

"Period : 13th February, 1980 to 22nd July, 1980.

(14) Relations with :‑

(a) Public

Bad

(b) Colleagues .. . Bad

(16) General turn out and

personality . Poor

(17) Class of Report 'C'

(18) General Remarks : There were complaints of corruption against him while he was posted at P. P. Gakhar and was transferred to P. P. Kamoke."

The appellant trade a representation to the D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, who partly accepted his representation and changed the adverse remarks given against column No. 16, General turn out and personality from 'Poor' to 'average' and the remaining portion of the adverse remarks were allowed to stand as such, vide his order No. 6535 36/E. C. dated, 13th April, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant undoubtedly bad very good relations with the public as well as with his colleagues. The remarks given by the Reporting Officer were the basis of a complaint lodged by Messrs Shaukat Ali and Liaqat Ali sons of Rehmat Ali bad characters, residents of Gakhar Mandi, to the effect that they were not properly treated by the appellant. This matter was thrashed out against the appellant. He was served with a show‑cause notice. D. S. P. as well as A. S. P., Wazirabad were directed to hold inquiries against the appellant and no mala fide intention of the appellant was established during the course of inquiries. Thus, the appellant was exonerated from the charge. This complaint and issue was very much in the mind, of Reporting Officer when the A. C. R. of the appellant was written and these adverse remarks were obviously the result of the said complaint against the appellant. D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala was also influenced by this complaint when the representation of the appellant was considered and decided by him. Later on, on thorough probe in the matter and keeping in view the inquiry reports of the two Inquiry Officers, the mala fide intention of the appellant was not established. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, thus, there is every justification for expunction of the adverse remarks against the appellant, which have not been recorded on the basis of valid grounds. Two affidavits of Muhammad Yusaf Ali Khao, A. S. I. and Sadat Ali Bhatti Muharrir, dated 25th September, 1983 have also been produced at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant, to certify that the behaviour of the appellant with his colleagues and the public was good and co‑operative and there were no complaints whatsoever either from his colleagues or from the public, whilted the appellant was posted at Police Chowki, Gakhar, in the year 1980. It was further point out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has earned a number of commendation certificates during the course of his long service and his service record has been exemplary. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that another incident took place later in the same year, when his one year's approved service was forfeited while he was posted as Incharge P. S. Kamoke, which might have influenced the mind of the Reporting Officer and the D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, while considering his representation for expunction of adverse remarks. This fact in no way should have any bearing on this case, as this punishment was set aside vide D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, Order No. 23995‑96/E. C., dated 21st November, 1981. While concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that adverse remarks in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the period 13th February, 1980 to 22nd July, 1980 have been given on misunderstanding, otherwise the appellant is an efficient Police Officer, with excellent past service record and has prayed that the adverse remarks so recorded be expunged; as the same will affect the future career of the appellant.

5. Controverting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department has submitted that the comments of the Reporting Officer on the representation of the appellant against the adverse remarks, have fully justified these remarks while forwarding the representation of the appellant to the D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala. When the representation of the appellant was considered by the D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujcanwala, he fully applied his mind on whole issue and had changed the adverse remarks given in column No. 16. Thus, the adverse remarks, which finally stand in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the period from 13th February, 1980 to 22nd July, 1980 are those which are fully justified and cannot be expunged.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties, and have also perused the record of this case very carefully.

7. It has been admitted in paras. 2 and 3 by the respondents in their parawise comments submitted on this appeal of the appellant, that the appellant earned 31 good entries as against two censures during his service. The files and record produced by the respondents show that there is only one complaint on the record against the appellant during the period under dispute while he was posted at Police Chowki, Gakhar, by Messrs Shaukat Ali and Liaqat Ali, sons of Rehmat Ali of Gakhar Mandi. I have also perused the comments of the Reporting Office on the representation of the appellant for expunction of adverse remarks, submitted to D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, vide Endorsement No. 6199, dated 17th February, 1982 and noting, dated 31st March, 1982 of the D. I.‑G. Police Gujranwat4 Range, Gujranwala while the representation of the appellant was considered by him. It appears that both the officers were influenced by this complaint of Messrs Shaukat Ali and Liaqat Ali of Gakhar. Though it was mentioned by the appellant in his representation that the above complaint was found without footing by the Enquiry Officers and the same was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, this important fact, somehow or other, was not considered by both the above officers at the time of dealing the representation of the appellant. The record shows that on receipt of the above complaint, the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice. This matter was inquired by two Police Officers i.e. D. S. P. and A. S. P., Wazirabad. Para. 3 of letter No. 26130, dated 11th May, 1981, of Mr. Hameed Aslam Malik, S. P. Gujranwala addressed to the D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, is reproduced below to elucidate the matter :‑---

"3. The Inquiry Officer (Ch. Ahmad Ali Jaspal the then D. S. P., Wazirabad) submitted his findings absolving the S.‑I. from all the charges. The enquiry was remanded to A. S. P. Wazirabad to further probe and finalize the same within 7 days, who reported that no mala fide intention of S.‑I. Muhammad Zaman was established during the course of inquiry. In view of the findings of the then D. S. P. Wazirabad and the present A. S. P., the outgoing S. P. filed the papers with a warning to the S.‑I.

(Sd.)

Hameed Aslam Malik,

Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala.

S. P./G. W. L.

What was the warning for, if he was exonerated

(Sd.)

D. I.‑G. Police, Gjw.

26/5"

The findings of the Enquiry Officers and decision of S. P./D. I.‑G., Police, Gujranwala, show that no mala fide intention of the appellant was established.

8. I have also perused the other A. C. Rs. of the appellant to satisfy myself, whether he suffered from the defect as recorded in his A. C. R. for the period from 13th February, 1980 to 22nd July, 1980. For comparison sake the A. C. R. for the year 1979, prior to 1980, and for the latter years (23rd July, 1980 to 31st December, 1980, 6th May, 1981 to 8th July, 1981 and 9th July, 1981 to 31st December, 1981, A. C. R. for 1982 not available on the record), have been checked. Following are the observa tions recorded against the controversial items :‑----

9. The history and facts of this case reveal that the adverse remarks recorded for the period 13th February, 1980 to 22nd July, 1980 were only as a result of complaint against the appellant filed by Messrs Shaukat Ali and Liaqat Ali sons of Rehmat Ali of Gakhar Mandi. Letter No. 26130, dated 11th May, 1981 of Mr. Hameed Aslam Malik, S. P. Gujranwala reproduced in para. 7 above, the remarks, dated 26th May, of the D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala, on the said letter, prove that no mala fide intention was established against the appellant. Thus, the adverse remarks which were as a result of the said complaint, are not justified to sustained. Furthermore, his A. C. R's. record produced in para. 8 above, shows that the appellant has not been habitual of these defects.

10. Keeping the above analysis in view, I consider that there is no justification in these adverse remarks and are liable to be expunged. The result is that the appeal is accepted and it is directed that the adverse remarks so recorded in the A. C. R. of the appellant for the period fro 13th February, 1980 to 22nd July, 1980 be expunged. There will be no order as to costs.

A.E. 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.