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. 605/934 of 1984, decided on 15th July, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Adverse remark s‑‑Expunction‑‑Police Sub‑Inspector serving only for four months under Reporting Officer‑‑Graded below average in "Investigation of crime against Property" and "Preventive action" and not fit for service beyond 25 years service‑‑Remarks not sub stantiated by Reporting Officer in reply to representation‑‑"Investi gation, held, cannot be judged merely on value of recovered property‑ Record in3icative that appellant did arrest some persons as preventive action and remarks without comparing previous figures found not justified‑‑Tribunal further expressing view that fitness for service on completion of 25 years cannot be judged in four months‑‑Impugned, remarks, in circumstance directed to be expunged.
Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
‑‑Muhammad Zaman, Sub‑Inspector of Police Posted Maghiana, Jhang Saddar, Jhang, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector‑General Police and the Superin tendent of Police, Faisalabad as respondents.
2. Through this appeal the appellant Muhammad Zaman has prayed that the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the year 1983 may be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was communicated the following adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the year 1983:‑
"(5.1) Investigation of crime against propert.
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
"18. Fitness for retention after 25 years service. Unfit
"19. Class of report. C'
"General remarks.
"Who did not take due interest in his work while posted as Incharge P.P. Jhang Bazar, hence his performance remained below average."
The appellant submitted representation for the expunction of the adverse remarks but his representation was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of the arguments, the learned counsel of the appellant stated that adverse remarks concern for the period of 4 months only when the appellant was posted at Police Post Jhang Saddar, Faisalabad. The learned counsel of the appellant added that the appellant performed his duties deligently and for preventive action arrested 25 persons. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the appellant during his posting recovered stolen property of substantial value. The learned counsel of the appellant while concluding his arguments stated that the appellant was physically fit and could perform his duty after completing 25 years of service.
5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the impugned remarks were recorded in good faith and on good ground. The learned District Attorney added that the Reporting officer bore no grudge against the appellant and was not in any manner prejudiced. The learned District Attorney closed the arguments while stating that the Reporting Officer had rebutted the version of the appellant by quoting figures and statistics. The appeal of the appellant was also considered by the D.I.G. and was dismissed having no force.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the parties and we have also perused the relevant record, including the comments of the Reporting Officer. We are of the opinion that the Reporting Officer has not been able to substantiate his adverse remarks. In this regard it may be observed that the period under report was short. Secondly investigation cannot be judged merely on the value of recovered property. Beside that cases not involving any property have also to be investigated. We have also found that the appellant did arrest some persons in the preventive action and without comparing with previous figures, remarks regarding preventive action could not be justified. As regards fitness for service on completion of 25 years of service cannot be judged in four months much less in the above situtation. This remark is again not substantiated. Similarly, the remaining adverse) remarks being based on the above adverse remarks are not supported.
7. Hence we accept the appeal and direct that the entire impugned adverse remarks for the year 1983 of the appellant be expunged.
8. There are no orders as to costs.
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