Find a Lawyer

Case No. 62/1130 of 1981, decided on 27th May; 1982:

‑‑ S. 4‑--Limitation ‑Starts from date of communication of impugned order ‑ Impugned order passed in presence of appellant but communicated subsequently‑Contention that limitation be reckoned from date of passing such order‑Rejected‑Appeal found within limitation period from date of communication of impugned order- Objection as to limitation, in circumstances, repelled.

‑‑ Adverse remarks‑Reporting Officer in comments on representa tion for expunction mentioning background and fully justifying remarks‑Interference, in circumstances, refused by Service Tribu nal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Muhammad Banaras, Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974, in which he has impleaded, Superintendent of Police, Multan, D. I.‑G. Police, Multan Range, Multan and I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned final order, dated 31st December, 1979 conveyed to him, on 31st December, 1980 of I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore may kindly be set aside and the adverse remarks recorded for the year 1978 be ordered to be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted Inspector, Additional Police Force, Lahore upto July, 1978. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted as Inspector/S. H. O. Police Station, Multan Cantt. in August, 1978. The Superintendent of Police, Multan gave the following adverse remarks to the appellant for the year 1978 :‑

"Failed as Inspector P. S. Cantt. Multan and was reverted. Is careless and inefficient."

The appellant filed the representation against these adverse remarks to Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore which was rejected through the impugned order in the appeal. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the record very carefully. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant on the main issue that due to the sad incidents of burglaries in the Cantonment area, Multan, the appellant was reverted in 1978 from the officiating rank of Inspector to that of Sub‑Inspector but was allowed to remain as S. H. O. at the same station. He was, however, re‑promoted due to his satisfactory work vide Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Order No. 1813/E‑I1, dated 22nd January, 1979, on the recommen dation of D. I.‑G. Multan Range, Multan, In view of these facts adverse remarks given to him are unjustified and should be expunged on these grounds. On the other hand learned District Attorney had raised prelimi nary objection that the appeal was time‑barred as the order by I‑G. P. Lahore on 31^st December, 1979 was passed in the presence of the appellant and time bad to run from that date for commuting the period of limitation. On merits District Attorney submitted that it is a fact that successive burglaries occurred in the Cantonment area few yards away from Police Station and it is proved beyond any doubts that the appellant was careless and inefficient. Had he been efficient, he would have taken steps for the effective control of crime in his area. So far as his re‑promotion is concerned, it is submitted that D.I.‑G. Police, Multan Range, Multan's letter No. 1887/E, dated 20th January, 1979 while making recommendation for his re‑promotion, mentions only regarding the detection of two cases of thefts and not his general performance during the period under report.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments and have also carefully examined the record. The fact remains that the successive burglaries were committed in the Cantonment area while the appellant was posted as S. H. O. of Cantonment Multan which is located within that locality. If the appellant had performed his duties efficiently and carefully, he would have taken proper measures to prevent the repetition of the said crime. Since be did not take any such steps so the offence was repeated which proved his carelessness and inefficiency.

6. The appellant has taken the plea that the recommendation made by the respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 for re‑promoting the appel lant, contains facts and figures with regard to the good work of the appellant as S. H. O. of the same Police Station and this recommendation will prove that the adverse remarks in question were inconsistent and not sustainable at all. However, a perusal of Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan's (respondent No. 2) letter No. 1887/E, dated 20th January, 1979 containing the recommendation for his re promotion to Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab Lahore (respondent No. 3), makes it clear that only mention of detection of two thdfts cases by him has been made and nothing has been said regarding his other general performance. This even does not mention anything about non‑maintenance of daily diary of his Police Station in November, 1978 which was another reason for his reversion.

7. Inspector‑General of Police Punjab, Lahore had also called for the remarks from the Superintendent of Police, Sadar Division, Lahore, the then reporting officer of the appellant regarding his representation for expunction of remarks for the year 1978. The Superintendent of Police, Sadar Division, Lahore vide his letter No. 2039/S. T. S. P Sadar, dated 21st October; 1979 has mentioned that during appellant's short period of posting as S. H. O., P. S. Multan Cantonment as many as 29 Burglaries were com mitted out of which only' 18 could be worked out. The appellant failed to show his worth as detective. He had not effective control on crime ana criminals. He has fully justified the background regarding these adverse remarks and reported that the adverse remarks given by him were justifiea and absolutely correct. While considering the representation. of appellant and deciding it on 31^st December, 1979, Inspector‑General of Police. Punjab, Lahore had taken into consideration the views of the reportim officer and also the very fact of his repromotion, but Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore rejected his representation on merits. Therefore, we hold that the adverse remarks against the appellant in his A. C. R. for the year 1978 are justified and substantiated by the facts.

8. So far as the plea of limitation taken by the learned District Attorney is concerned, we are afraid that we cannot accept the same because the impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 30^th December, 1980 which is apparent from the note on the letter No. S/94/80,[ dated 3rd January, 1980 from I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore to D. I.‑G.1 Police, Crime Branch, Punjab, Lahore; as such the appeal is within time and the objection raised by learned District Attorney is overruled.

The result of the discussion is that we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. There will be no order as to its costs.

A. E.

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.