Find a Lawyer

Case No. 263/730 of 1984, decided on 20th October, 1984.

‑‑ Adverse remarks‑Representation against adverse remarks and comments thereon of Reporting Officer should be in language temperate vis‑a‑vis superiors‑Adverse remarks recorded by Superin tendent of Police in A. C. R. of Police Inspector based upon certain charges and allegation‑Such charges disproved in Inquiry and findings of such enquiry examined and upheld by D. I.‑G. of Police‑Reporting Officer in his comments on representation for expunction of adverse remarks expressing surprise and making strong observations against findings of D. I.‑G. of Police recorded on enquiry report ‑‑ Such comments taken note of by Service Tribunal and described as (i) contrary to elementary principle in discipline force of Police that order of superior is always accepted as correct, (ii) contrary to Government instructions that language used not only in representations but also in comments thereon should always be temperate vis‑a‑vis superiors and (iii) disclosing some sort of bias of Reporting officer against appellant as he was not prepared to accept of his superior‑Tribunal, in circumstances, accepting appeal and directing expunction of impugned adverse remarks‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), 9. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents

Muhammad Hussain, Inspector/S. H. O. Police Station Saddar, Dera Ghazi Khan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the D. I.‑G. Police, Multan Range, Multan, Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob, S. P., Jhelum and D. I.‑G. Police,‑ D. G.. Khan Range, D. G. Khan, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks from appellant's A. C. R. for the year 1982, be expunged and the impugned orders dated 15th September, 1983, 26th February, 1984 and 8th March, 1984 be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while be was working under Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob, S. P. was given the following' adverse remarks by the said Reporting Officer :‑

(1) Integrity Controversial.

(2) General turn out and Poor.

personality.

(3) Fitness for retention after Unfit.

25 years service.

(4) Unfit for further pro

motion has reached his

ceiling.

"He was reputed to have developed relations with the criminals in Sahiwal District because of his long stay of posting in this District. A case was reported, in which he had let off an accused of keeping illicit weapon allegedly after accepting bribe from him."

These remarks were recorded by the S. P. Sahiwal, respondent No. 3 and were countersigned by Respondent No. 1. The appellant submitted his detailed representation against these adverse remarks which was forwarded by letter, dated 25th October, 1983 to the respondent No. 2 who rejected the same by his order dated 26th February, 1984 which was conveyed to the appellant on 8th March, 1984. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learn ed District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a regular enquiry' was held vide show‑cause notice Annexure‑D/1, on the same charges, but the appellant denied the said charges and as a result of the said enquiry, he was exonerated from all the charges against him and categorically held that ail the charges have been disproved and no offence was made on the part of the appellant. Khan, and The finding was accepted by respond at No. 4, D. I.‑G., D. appellant stood exonerated. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, when the very allegations on which the Reporting Officer based his assessment, were frilly disproved and the appellant stood exonerated, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to accept the representation of the appellant is view of the said findings and direct the expunction of the impugned remarks from the A. C. R. of the appellant.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the Reporting Officer has fully justified his assessment, therefore, the same may be accepted.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and first of all will advert to the inquiry conducted on the basis of these allegations as the said inquiry report and the order of the D. I.‑G. would be sheet anchor of the case of the appellant. This inquiry report is placed on record as Annexure‑G. In this regular inquiry nine witnesses of previous preliminary enquiry, were re‑examined. Contradictions were sorted out in both of their statements and they were cross‑examined on 5th February, 1983. Moreover on 30th January, 1983 an open Inquiry was held in Chak No. 19/EB and fifteen witnesses belonging to different castes and functional groups were examined, by the said Enquiry Officer holding the rank of A. S. P./S. D. P. O., Taunsa, Similarly on 30th January, 1983 in the evening sixteen other witnesses relating to case F. 1. R. No. 31/82 P: S. A‑Division, Sahiwal, were examined by him. The Enquiry Officer further examined fifteen notables of Arifwala City and its surround ings voluntarily appeared before him and spoke about the general reputation of the appellant. The Enquiry Officer examined the relevant documents as indicated below :‑

(i) Daily Diary of P. S. Arifwala, dated 14th July, 1982.

(ii) Case file No. 31/82, dated 7th February, 1982 under section 17(6) (29) Islamic Law, P. S. A. Division, Sahiwal.

(iii) Service Record of the appellant.

8. The allegations against the appellant were almost the same which have been now levelled against him in the form of adverse remarks. The result of the inquiry was that the allegations so levelled against him stood disproved and A. S. P. (Enquiry Officer) exonerated him. The D. I.‑G. Police, after going through the report of the Enquiry Officer, agreed with the same and filed the said case against the appellant. Later on an official communication was made to him through the order, dated 7th March, 1983 placed as Annexure‑H, on the file, in which it was concluded that after going through the Enquiry file and hearing the Inspector in the Orderly Room on 3rd March, 1983 the D. I.‑G. Police, D. G. Khan Range, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and exonerated him of all the charges against him. To satisfy myself I have also minutely perused the entire evidence so recorded by the Enquiry Officer during the period he held that inquiry against him and after going through the said evidence, I am fully convinced that the Enquiry Officer was justified to reach to the conclusion that nothing was proved against the appellant and stood exonerated. This being the state of affair, I do not find any justification for Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob, the then S. P., Sahiwal (Reporting Officer) to assess the appellant as he has been so assessed. I have also given full consideration of his comments and I am constrained to observe that once his superior. D. I.‑G. Police D. G. Khan Range, had agreed with the finding of the A. S. P. Taunsa (Enquiry Officer) and exonerated the appellant fully, he had no right to express his surprise on the said findings. It is an elementary principle in the disciplined force of Police that the order of the superior is always accepted as correct otherwise there will be no end of this sort of controversy. May be the Reporting Officer was no happy over the regret of the said inquiry but once the said inquiry has been accepted as correct by the D. I.‑G. Police, D. G. Khan Range, hr ought not to have made such like observations while submitting hi6 comments before this Tribunal. The rule of the game is always applicable to each and every civil servant whether subordinate or superior and it should have been known that according to the instructions of the Government from time to time that the language used by one who makes representation as well as comments should always be temperate vis‑a‑vis his superiors. Reliance is placed on I.‑G. Police own standing instruction No. 32 which deals with writing of A. C. Rs. and expunction of adverse; remarks. This strong observation about his superior by the Reporting Officer, in a manner discloses that he had some sort of bias of his own against the appellant as he was not prepared to accept the verdict of his superior.

9. While concluding this case I would like to mention that a further charge has been made against the appellant although the same was not part of the observation in the A. C. R. regarding the purchase of 23 acres land in the name of his wife. As this charge does not relate to the A. C. R. but at the same time has been mentioned by the Reporting Officer first time, I called upon the appellant to explain the same. The appellant has filed his affidavit as well as affidavits of his brother‑in‑law and others and all these affidavits are to the effect that his father‑in‑law owned 20 squares of land in Tehsil Kabirwala out of which he gave 5 squares of land to his mother and sisters. When the appellant was married to his daughter he sold his one square of land in the year 1980 and out of the sale proceeds he purchased one square of land in the name of his daughter (appellant's wife) in order to give her legal right under the Islamic Law. I have gone through all the affidavits and find the explanation satisfactory. The affidavits have been placed on record as Annexures M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U and V, respectively. I have perused the entire C. R. dossier of the appellant and find that he had not earned a single adverse report during his entire service career which might have described the appellant as a corrupt officer. Therefore, I cannot accept the view of the Reporting Officer that the appellant had himself purchased the land in question through illegal means.

10. In view of the detailed analysis of the case, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the adverse remarks so recorded in the appellant's A. C. R. of 1982, be expunged. However, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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