NISAR AHMAD Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, FAISALABAD RANGE, FAISALABAD

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).‑ The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the adverse remarks communicated to him for the year 1980 vide order dated 6th October, 1981 be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant served in capacity of A.S.‑I the adverse remarks (reproduced below) were initiated by the then Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. Subsequently after the counter‑signature, the adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant who filed the representation before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad. However, pending the disposal of representation and after expiry of 90 days the appellant filed the appeal. Hence this appeal : ‑

Impugned adverse remarks;

"Warned for recording case diaries late and on the‑ charge of inefficiency."

General remarks;

"He is in habit of writing case diaries with delay. A useless and spent up officer who has outlived his utility."

4. The grounds for the appeal are that the adverse remarks were recorded on some misunderstanding because otherwise there was no justification to record. Secondly the question of departmental enquiry regarding case diaries late and on the charge of inefficiency resulting to the warning to the appellant is not based on correct facts. Lastly the general remarks were ex parte without any reasonable ground and the questioned entries were recorded very late.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney for respondents. We have perused the relevant record carefully.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the grounds mentioned in para. 4 above. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the Superintendent of Police is supported by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police. Secondly none of the said officer had any malice or grudge against the appellant.

7. Keeping the facts in view it may be appreciated that the warning about the delayed case diaries was communicated preceding to the questioned communication, but no representation appears to be made. We also find from the record that the Superintendent of Police fully supported the adverse remarks given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The said officers have cited multiple examples of casts investigated by the appellant to justify the adverse reports. As such, we find no force in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

M.I ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Appeal dismissed.