Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 82/91 of 1985, decided on 13th October, 1985.
‑‑‑ Adverse remarks in A.C.R.‑‑Police Officer given adverse remarks in respect of performance for about 31 months‑‑Performance comparatively better than that for about 61 months which was assessed as "good"‑ Adverse remarks further found based upon incorrect working data supplied by subordinates to Reporting Officer‑‑Impugned adverse remarks, in circumstances, expunged by Service Tribunal‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.
Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
Hassan Shah, Sub‑Inspector, Special Branch, Jhang has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals' Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 28‑6‑1984 and the final order dated 26‑1‑1985/ 29‑1‑1985 be set aside and the impugned adverse remarks be expunged from the appellant's A.C.R. for the period from 1‑7‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks for the period from 1‑7‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983 vide Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad Letter No. 1774/St., dated 28‑6‑1984.
| "(5.a) Investigation of crime against property. | Below average. |
| (b) Preventive action, action under Local and Special Laws. | Below average. |
| 6. Rating as a S. H. O., if so appointed. | Below average. |
| 19. Class of report. | 'C' |
General remarks.
The Officer remained at P.S. Tandlianwala from 1‑7‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983. He investigated only 7 cases during this period, in which one pertains to crime against property, 2 under the head Local and Special Laws and i.e. about all. Whereas, in a heavy Police Station, like Tandlianwala, he could have produced much better results. Working of the officer remained poor and he is graded as 'C'."
The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad which was rejected vide his order dated 26‑1‑1985. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i.e., Mr. M. A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks given tot he appellant are misconceived and the Reporting Officer has not applied his mind fully while recording these remarks. It has been submitted that the active period of working of the appellant during the period under report is only 1‑7‑1983 to 19‑10‑1983 as the appellant remained on medical leave from 20‑10‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983. Thus, the working period for the period under report was only three months and 19 days. The performance of the appellant was to be judged for this period only. It appears that the performance of the appellant for the period of about 31 months was taken inadvertantly by the Reporting Officer for six months for the 2nd part of the year under report. Also the Tandlianwala staff where the appellant was posted at that time did not supply the correct figures of his performance to the Reporting Officer. He had investigated 17 cases during this period whereas the Reporting Officer had mentioned only 7 cases in the A. C. R. Similarly the correct data regarding recovery made of stolen property was not supplied to the Reporting Officer. All these misleading facts resulted in these adverse remarks which are unfounded and misconceived.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied in extenso on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. He has also submitted that the Reporting Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal vide 'his Letter No. 272/St., dated 30‑12‑1984 addressed to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad has fully justified the adverse remarks recorded against the appellant. Thus, no exception can be taken against the impugned order which are correct and valid orders.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. I have perused the justification of the Reporting Officer i.e., Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal submitted vide letter dated 30‑12‑1984 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad on the representation of the appellant for expunction of the adverse remarks. Paras. 3 and 4 are reproduced below:‑
"3. According to the working data, prepared by Muharrir Head Constable P.S. Tandlianwala and forwarded by S.D.P.O. Smundri on 8‑1‑1984 (photo stat copy enclosed for ready reference), representation is worked out only case F.I.R. No. 294, dated 7‑9‑1983 under section 379/411 P.P.C. P.S. Tandlianwala recovering a Cattle Head valuing Rs.5,000. He also recovered two unlicenced weapons and registered cases F.I.R. No.266, 267/83 under section 13‑20‑65 A.0. P.S. Tandlianwala. Now, S.D.P.O. Smundri has sent the working data of the represen tationist, according to which the representationist worked out 3 cases of theft and recovered stolen property to the tune of Rs.8,000. Besides that he also recovered two unlicenced weapons alongwith two cartridges. He also booked five persons under section 107/151, Cr.P.C.
4. As regards the contention of the representationist that during his posting as S.H.O., he got worked out 11 cases of theft, Prohibition Order 1979, Arms Ordinance etc., is correct according to the working data supplied by the S.D.P.O. Smundri. It is also enclosed for ready reference.
The Reporting Officer has himself conceded through this justification that the working data prepared by Muharrir Head Constable P.S. Tandlianwala and forwarded by S.D.P.0, Smundri on 8‑1‑1984 on which the A.C.R. of the appellant was based is different from the latest data supplied by S.D.P.0, Smundri. According to the data now supplied by the S.D.P.O., Smundri, the stolen property to the tune of Rs.8,000 was recovered and not worth Rs.5,000 as reported earlier. Similar eleven cases of theft, Prohibition Order 1979, Arms Ordinance etc. were worked out by the appellant and not seven as reported in Column "General Remarks" as per A.C.R. under report. Thus, according to the justification given by the Reporting Officer, it is clear that the adverse remarks given to the appellant by the Reporting Officer were due to incorrect working data supplied by the Muharrir Head Constable, P.S. Tandlianwala at that time. I have also perused the complete dossier the appellant. Following is the entry under 'General Remarks' in his A.C.R. for the year 1981, for the period from 1‑1‑1981 to 22‑7‑1981:‑
"18. General remarks: ‑
An intelligent and hard working Officer. He investigated 2 cases of theft, one was sent up and one remained untraced. Stolen property worth Rs.6,000 was recovered by him. He recovered one gun with 4 cartridges."
(Sd.)
Sultan Ahmad,
D.S.P./Sadar Sargodha.
(Sd.)
Shahid Hassan,
Superintendent of Police (B),
Special Branch, Punjab, Lahore."
In the present case the appellant recovered stolen property worth Rs.8,000. He recovered two unlicenced weapons and worked out 11 cases of theft, prohibition Order 1979, Arms Ordinance etc., during the period of his stay at P.S. Tandlianwala. The active working period of the appellant at Police Station, Tandlianwala was from 1‑7‑1983 to 19‑10‑1983 (about 31 months only) as detailed in para. 5 of the judgment. His period for the year 1981 was from 1‑1‑1981 to 22‑7‑1981 (about 6J months). The report for the year 1981 as mentioned above was taken "a good report." Hence on the better performance of the appellant for the lessor period under report, his A.C.R. cannot be taken as a bad or adverse one, especially keeping in view the working data lately supplied by the S.D.P.O. Sumundri, so mentioned by the Reporting Officer himself.
8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted. The adverse remarks for the period 1‑7‑1983 to 31‑12‑19831 are expunged and the impugned orders are set aside.
There is no order as to cost.
A.E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer