Find a Lawyer

Case No. 51/602 of 1984, decided on 25th April, 1985.

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Adverse remarks‑‑Appeal against‑‑Facts forming basis of adverse remarks, yet subject to (1) departmental appeal, (2) investigation, and (3) appeal before Tribunal‑‑Appeal accepted by Tribunal and investigation resulting in favour of appellant whereas, departmental appeal yet pending‑‑Tribunal, in circumstances, directing to departmental expunction authority to re‑examine case keeping in view appellate order of Tribunal, result of investigation and decision on departmental appeal yet pending before such authority.

Riaz Anwar for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

. ‑‑Manzoor Hussain Shah, A.S.I., Police Station, Multan Cantt has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police. Sahiwal and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks for the year 1980 communicated to the appellant vide order dated 7‑2‑1981 of respondent No. 2, be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the following adverse remarks for the year 1980 were conveyed by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan vide his Memo. No. 624/C.R.C., dated 7‑2‑1981:

The appellants made a representation against these adverse remarks to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan which was rejected vide order dated 23‑12‑1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Riaz Anwar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that against column No.4 the following adverse remarks have been conveyed to the appellant:‑

(1) Two years approved service forfeited of 30‑12‑1980 for misconduct in that while posted as S.H.O. at P.S. Noor Shah, he falsely implicated Lai Shah and Mst. Shamim in case F.I.R. No. 152, dated 2‑7‑1979 under section 16, Zina Ordinance, 1979 in connivance with Anwar Kitchi.

(2) Censured on 30‑12‑1980 for misconduct in the while posted as S.H.O. at P.S. Noor Shah, he did not register a cognizable offence and thus burked the case against property which was later on registered vide F.I.R. No. 217, dated 12‑7‑1980 under section 379, P.P.C. P.S. Noor Shah when complainant Shahadat appeared before D.I.‑G. M/R on 10‑7‑1980.

(3) Censured on 30‑12‑1980 for misconduct in that while posted as S.H.O. at P.S. Noor Shah during the year 1980 carried out the investigation of case F.I.R. No. 5, dated 11‑6‑1980 under section 379, P.P.C. Noor Shah in a most careless and perfunctory manner.

The reporting officer was influenced by these happenings when the A. C. R. of the appellant was written by him and this resulted in recording of the adverse remarks of the. reporting officer in other columns as well. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that as far as forfeiture of two years approved service of on 30‑12‑1980 for misconduct in case F.I.R. 152 is concerned the appeal is still pending before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan. As far as censure on 30‑12‑1980 for misconduct in that while posted as S.H.O. at P.S. Noor Shah, the appellant did not register a cognizable offence is concerned, Appeal No.53/604 of 1984 is pending for adjudication before this Tribunal. As far as censure on 30‑12‑1980 for misconduct in that while posted as S.H.O. at P.S. Noor Shah during the year 1980, regarding carrying out the investigation of case F.I.R. No.5, dated 11‑6‑1980 under section 379, P.P.C. P.S. Noor Shah, is concerned, the appeal has been accepted by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and this punishment has been set aside. Thus, the decision of the appeal pending before the Punjab Service Tribunal/Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan will have direct bearing on this case of the appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the remarks against sex morality (column No.13(a) and has submitted that these remarks were as a result of misunderstanding on the part of the reporting officer. It appears that this was as a result of levelling a false allegation against the appellant that while Mst. Kubra (abductee) was at the Police Station an attempt was made to rape her and get a case registered vide F.I R. No. 245, dated 2‑7‑1980 under section 11 of the Zina Ordinance under the order of the High Court. The case was investigated by Muhammad Ali Shah, D.S.P. Okara who after investigation reported on 11‑9‑1980 that the allegations were false and recommended for cancellation of case. The report for cancellation of the case was made on 14‑9‑1980 and was thus cancelled.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the comment of the Reporting Officer, Mirza Muhammad Anwar, P.P.M. the then Reporting Officer, offered on the appeal of the appellant regarding expunction of the adverse remarks and has submitted that these are of general nature and the Reporting Officer has not given any specific instances and facts to justify the adverse remarks so recorded by him.

8. It has further, been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per full facts and justification given by the appellant/ appellant's counsel in this appeal, the adverse remarks cannot be sustained on the A.C.R. of the appellant and be expunged.

9. The learned District Attorney has, however, rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has relied on the comments of the Reporting Officer and the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. He has pointed out that the remarks recorded in the A.C.R. are fully justified and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid and lawful orders.

10. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case very carefully. We have given a decision on the Appeal No. 53/604 of 1984 of the appellant decided on 25‑4‑1985. Similarly the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan has accepted the appeal of the appellant against the censure awarded to the appellant on the allegation of his careless investigation of case F.1.R. No. 5/80 under section 379 P.P.C. P.S. Noor Shah and had set aside the order vide his order, dated 15‑8‑1983. Moreover the appeal for the forfeiture of two years approved service on 30‑12‑M0 for misconduct (in case F.I.R. No. 152, dated 2‑7‑1979) is still pending before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan as pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant, as mentioned in the para. 5 of this judgment.

11. Keeping these facts in view under the changed circumstances, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan is directed to re‑examine the issue keeping in view the decision given by this Tribunal in Case No. 53/604 of 1984 of the appellant mentioned in para. 10 above. The decision given by him vide order, dated 15‑8‑1983, A on the representation of the appellant in case F.I.R. No. 5/80 under section 379, P.P.C., P.S. Noor Shah and the decision yet to be given by him for the appeal which is pending before him, so that no injustice is done with the appellant.

12. The appeal is disposed off with the direction as given in para 11 above of this judgment.

There are no order as to costs.

A.E

Orders accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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