ABDUS SATTAR Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAHIMYARKHAN

Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was communicated following adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983, through memo. dated 7‑3‑1984:‑

"5(b) Preventive action and action under local and Below average. special laws.

6 General turn out and Poor. personality.

17 General remarks. Was found irresponsible and disinterested in his official duties."

The appellant submitted representation against these impugned remarks which was considered and rejected by respondent No.2 vide memo. dated 5‑8‑1985, conveyed to the appellant on 3‑9‑1985. The appellant thereafter submitted another representation, which was filed on the ground that no second representation was competent. The order was communicated through memo. dated 3‑9‑1985. The appellant feeling not satisfied filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, on 6‑10‑1985, wherein he has impugned the memos. dated 7‑3‑1984, communicating the adverse remarks as well as the order of rejection of his first representation dated 5‑8‑1985 and second order rejecting second representation dated 3‑9‑1985.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of Respondents. I have gone through the record produced before me.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that these remarks are mala fide as the appellant incurred displeasure of A.S.P. and further submitted that the remarks are contradicted by other entries in the same report. On the other hand learned District Attorney has argued that the remarks are fully justified so much so that the appellant was warned by D.S.P. on account of taking no interest in his duties, in February, 1983. I am afraid that a single instance that too in the early part of the year is not sufficient to brand a person as inefficient throughout the year. Moreover, these remarks are contradicted by the remarks in column 18, where it is clearly recorded that the appellant finalized 14 cases out of 16 cases. Therefore, I feel these remarks are unjustified and cannot be allowed to stand in the A.C.R. of the appellant.

4. Now I take up other two remarks as to preventive action. These are vague unjustified, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand.) The remarks as to the turn out and personality, are on the face of it, contradicted by report for the year 1984, where in the first six months he has been graded as 'good' while in the second half of the year is graded as 'average'. Even otherwise from the appearance of the appellant I find him a man of personality, therefore, these remarks are unjustified.

The upshot of discussion is that I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and expunge the remarks so impugned.

There is no order as to costs.

A.A. /151/Sr.P Appeal accepted.