JANAS KHAN, INSPECTOR Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI RANGE, RAWALPINDI

1. The relevant facts for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant joined Punjab Police in the year 1952 as Constable/

2. Clerk. He earned many promotions and ultimately was promoted as Inspector in the year 1980. He was posted at Rawalpindi in the year 1985, when following adverse remarks were recorded in his ACR:‑

3. Integrity Controversial."

4. "He was posted as S. H. O., P. S . Murree Road where he could not deliver goods as a result of which he had to be pulled out."

5. The period of report is from 1‑1‑1985 to 31‑12‑1985, and was conveyed to him through memo No.S/9014/86 dated 18‑11‑1986. The appellant filed representation for expunction of these remarks before Respondent No.2, who did not find any justification and rejected the same vide order dated 3‑3‑1987. The appellant thereafter decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 20‑6‑1987 and notices issued to, the respondents. The Respondents have entered appearance, filed written objections and contested the appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have gone through the service record of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal has raised the following points:‑

(a) Firstly, that the remarks are without basis and contradicted by entire service record of the appellant including the report as Inspector;

(b) Secondly, that the remarks are mala fide, which is established by the fact that throughout the year the appellant was made a rolling stone and there were as many as seven transfers and maximum period of duty at one post was 3 months and 15 days as Inspector Traffic; and

(c) Thirdly, that the remarks are vague.

3. On the other hand learned District Attorney has argued that the remarks truly depicted the work and conduct of the appellant. It is vehemently argued that there was no mala fides on the part of the Reporting Officer. The appellant was successively shifted from post to post because he failed to prove his worth anywhere.

4. I have gone through the record and find that the plea of the appellant that he has clean and unblemished service record is supported by his ACR dossiers. He was promoted as Inspector in June, 80 and his grading is as under:‑

6. Year:

7. Integrity

8. Class of Report:

9. 1981

10. Honest

11. AI

12. 1‑1‑1982 to 4‑9‑1982

13. Honest

14. AI For retention after 25 years service. Fit for promotion

15. 1‑1‑1983 to 20‑6‑1983

16. Honest

17. A

18. 27‑6‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983

19. Honest

20. A

21. 1‑1‑1984 to 7‑8‑19

22. Honest

23. A

24. 8‑8‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984

25. Not Known

26. Average.

27. I have asked the learned District Attorney to pin point the material supporting the remarks 'Controversial' but he could not produce anything in support of the same. I am not ready to believe that the appellant who throughout his career was honest and considered as a competent Police Officer overnight became useless and his integrity became controversial. In this behalf reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on the case of Ijaz Muhammad Khan reported as 1983 PLC (CS) 303, the relevant portion reads as under:‑

28. "Inefficiency and corruption are traits of character which linger on with a person and cannot be developed suddenly than can leave him abruptly."

5. The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the remarks are mala fide. It is admitted fact that the appellant was made a rolling stone and he suffered eight transfers within this year. I have checked the record and find that there were almost eight transfers which includes one transfer from Rawalpindi Range to Sargodha Range. The Respondents have tried to justify the transfers with the remarks that the appellant failed to prove his worth, therefore, he was successfully transferred from one place to another. I am least impressed by the justification rendered by the Reporting Officer and my reasons are:‑

29. Firstly, if the appellant was so inefficient then he should have been thrown out of service,

30. Secondly, the justification is contradicted by the whole service record of the appellant as well as the report in hand. I need not refer to all the previous reports. Suffice it is to refer the remarks earned by the appellant as Inspector from 1981 to 1984:

31. 1‑1‑1981 to 31‑12‑1981 "An officer with keen sense of responsibility. Has smart bearing and pleasant manners."

32. 1‑1‑1982 to 4‑9‑1982 A smart Officer.

33. 16‑8‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982 An energetic, diligent, tactful and smart officer. Did well as SHO

34. Old Kotwali and doing well also

35. Incharge Traffic without any complaint.

36. 1‑1‑1983 to 20‑6‑198 A smart and tactful officer. His performance as Incharge Traffic remained satisfactory.

37. 27‑6‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983 willing worker, always found ready and undertakes any task assigned to him with smiling face.

38. 1‑1‑1984 to 7‑8‑1984 An officer with a smart turn‑out and personality whose overall performance as Traffic Inspector incharge of a section was average. his conduct is good.

39. 8‑8‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984 An average officer, who performed in a just satisfactory manner in traffic. "

40. Now coming to the report in hand, the appellant has been treated as "Average" by the Reporting Officer himself and same position was maintained by him in the opening sentence of his observation in 'General remarks column'. The remarks that he was posted as S. H.O., P.S. Murree (it should be read as Murree Road) where he could not deliver the goods as a result of which he was pulled out." The remarks are too vague and from the data supplied by the Respondents the appellant remained posted there only for 2 months and 9 days. I, therefore, conclude that the adverse remarks are without basis and vague.

6. It is clear colourable exercise of jurisdiction. The mala fides is patent and is proved by the mere fact that the appellant was harassed by frequent transfers. The plea of the appellant is fully proved by his service record as referred above. I may refer here the case of Muhammad Khalid Pervaiz v. Chairman, C.B.R. and two others reported as 1986 P L C (C.S.)

117. The relevant portion reads as under:‑

41. "Significantly, except the impugned report in all the reports available on the file those written prior and subsequent the appellant was assessed to be honest. Indeed, the impugned adverse remarks do not find support either from the record or any incident which should satisfy us that the appellant was dishonest. The impugned adverse remarks cannot, therefore, be reasonably considered as an objective assessment, more particularly, because when, as said above, the appellant was assessed to be honest in all the prior and subsequent reports, one fails to understand what happened during this short period which changed so drastically the opinion of the Reporting Officer about the appellant's integrity."

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Respondents failed to place anything on record to support these remarks as to 'Integrity'. It is added that in a similar case of Munir Hussain, Inspector the Respondent No.2 has treated the remarks vague. On the other hand in this appeal it was argued on behalf of the Respondents that the remarks are clear and case referred is not relevant.

8. I have given my anxious consideration and conclude that the remarks are too vague and the Reporting officer has failed to advance justification. It is true that the remarks are not to be detailed but it is the legal obligation of the Reporting Officer to justify the same with reference to the evidence, when called upon to support his report. In this behalf Instructions about writing of ACRs are clear and relevant portion of the instructions reads as under:‑

42. "30. Manner of writing the reports‑‑The opinion expressed should be the result of careful consideration, no personal bias, ire, or favouritism should colour the Report. The Reporting Officer should be in a position to justify his views, if called upon, to do so."

9. It is also true that the case of Munir Hussain, Inspector was exactly the same and in that case the Respondent No.2 proceeded to accept the representation. The relevant portion of his order dated 4‑1‑1987 reads as under:‑

43. "The adverse remarks given by the Reporting Officer are generally of vague nature, dilating upon the health and anatomy of the officer and describing other traits on his character rather than being specific in his comments about the performance of the officer."

10. In the light of the above discussions, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and expunge the impugned adverse remarks. There is no order as to costs.

44. S. Q. /191/Sr.P Appeal accepted.