Find a Lawyer

Case No.504/295 of 1985, decided on 12th May, 1986.

Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975‑‑-----

‑‑‑R. 6‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) S. 4 Adverse remarks in A.C.R. against Police Officer‑‑Appeal for expunction‑ Adverse remarks against such Police Officer, held, were justified, from record‑‑However, a portion from general remarks was ordered to be expunged in view of acceptance of Police Officer's representation against such portion of remark by Additional Inspector‑General of Police.

Ashiq Hussain Malik for Appellant.

Ghulam‑us‑Syeddain, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

Muhammad Ayub Khan, Sub‑Inspector No.183/F, Incharge Police, Post Aroori Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal's Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police. Faisalabad and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks conveyed to him by respondent No. 1, vide order, dated 6‑7‑1985 be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the adverse remarks were recorded in the A.C.R. of the appellant for the year 1981 which were conveyed to the appellant. The appellant made a representation for expunction of adverse remarks to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad which was considered by him and some of the remarks were expunged, vide his order, dated 6‑7‑1985. However, the following remarks were allowed to be retained on the A.C.R. of the appellant:‑

A poor specimen of a Police Officer who was tried as S.H.O. Satiana and was found extremely inefficient, unreliable and was not considered fit to hold the rank of Sub‑Inspector. He did not have proper control over his subordinates nor over the criminals, of his Illaqa nor could he perform his duties required of an S.H.O. For his poor investigation in a case of robbery in which two murders were committed, he shielded the accused and as such was awarded a major punishment." Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Ashiq Hussain Malik, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ghulam‑us‑Syeddain. Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks for the year 1981 are mainly due to the reasons that the appellant was awarded a major punishment for poor investigation in a case of robbery in which two murders were committed and was alleged to have shielded the accused. This major punishment was presumably taken as basis for recording the entry against Integrity and class of report. He has pointed out that as this punishment was set aside by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, vide his order, dated 1‑3‑1983, hence these adverse remarks under item Integrity and Class of report stood expunged. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the commendation certificates attached with the appeal and has submitted that the appellant is an honest and hard working officer. The adverse remarks recorded in the other columns i.e., Investigation of crime against property, rating as S.H.O. if so appointed, readiness to accept responsibility and readiness to expose subordinates are also as a result of misunderstanding and have been recorded wrongly against the appellant. Similar is the position for the adverse remarks given against the column "General Remarks". The appellant's counsel rebutted with facts and figures the adverse remarks to justify that the adverse remarks were based on surmises and conjectures and these were not sustainable. It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the justification given by the appellant /appellant's counsel in his appeal and also at the time of arguments, the impugned order be quashed.

6 On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney has referred to the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents. He has also produced the facts and figures to show that the remarks against column 5 (a) regarding investigation of crime against property are fully justified. As far as other adverse remarks are concerned the learned Deputy District Attorney has submitted that the appellant was warned and also one year approved service was forfeited with permanent effect on account of poor control over his Subordinates which still stands. Thus, the remarks regarding his rating as S.H.O. if so appointed, readiness to accept responsibility and readiness to expose subordinates, stand fully proved against the appellant. As far as the integrity, Class of report and the General Remarks are concerned, these are based on facts as well, as the appellant as S.H.O. Satiana was found extremely inefficient, unreliable and was not considered fit to hold the rank of Sub‑Inspector, He had poor reputation. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the remarks so recorded have been fully justified by the respondent /Reporting Officer and no exception can be taken against the impugned order.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case produced by the respondents. I have also gone through the justification of the Reporting A Officer who had recorded these adverse remarks. The data of the performance of the appellant when he was posted as S.H.O., Satiana have also been perused as lately supplied by the respondents. I find that the following adverse remarks have been fully justified by the respondents:‑ 25

As far as the adverse remarks under item No. 18 "General Remarks are concerned, the following remarks cannot be sustained and are to be struck down as major punishment awarded to the appellant had been set aside by the Additional Inspector‑General f Police, Punjab, Lahore vide his order, dated 1‑3‑1983:‑

"For his poor investigation in a case of robbery in which two murders were committed he shielded the accused and as such was awarded a major punishment". Hence, in the General Remarks (Column 18) the following adverse remarks shall stand:‑

"A poor specimen of a Police Officer who was tried as S.H.O., Satiana and was found extremely inefficient, unreliable and was not considered fit to hold the rank of Sub‑Inspector. He did not have proper control over his subordinates nor over the criminals of his Illaqa nor could he perform his duties required of an S.H.O."

8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the adverse remarks so mentioned in para. 7 above of the judgment shall stand,

There is no order as to costs.

A.A. Order 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.