Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BASHIR AHMAD VS Respondent: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, LAHOREHonorable Justice ABDUL HAMID KHANMA. Riaz and Ch. Manzoor Hussain,Nemo
1991 P L C (C
1991 P L C (C.S.) 640
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Before Abdul Hamid Khan, Member
BASHIR AHMAD
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, LAHORE and others
Appeal No. 183/790 of 1987, decided on 22nd October, 1990.
Civil service---
---- Annual Confidential Report---Adverse remarks---Expunction of---Appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police contended that impugned Confidential Report was initiated by Deputy Superintendent of Police whereas the authority for that purpose was Superintendent of Police; that incident which had been made basis of Confidential Report occurred outside period of report and that impugned report was based on an incident/inquiry in which appellant had already been exonerated by Appellate Authority/Deputy Inspector-General of Police--- District Attorney was unable to controvert the contentions---Adverse remarks were ordered to be expunged.
MA. Riaz and Ch. Manzoor Hussain, DA. for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondents.
ORDER
Arguments heard. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following basic legal and factual objections:--
(i) Under Serial No. 21 of the Schedule to the I G.P's Standing Order No. 32 the authority for purposes of initiating the Confidential Reports in respect of the A.S.Is. is Superintendent of Police and not the D.S.P. Hence the remarks recorded by the then D.S.P., Naulakha, Lahore in the impugned Confidential Report are invalid being incompetent.
(ii) The incident which has been made the basis of this Confidential Report occurred outside the period of the report in question. This report covers the period 10-6-1981 to 18-12-1981 whereas the said incident occurred on 19-12-1981. It could not, therefore, be made the basis of recording the impugned remarks.
(iii) Again, the impugned report is based on an incident/enquiry in which the appellant has already been exonerated by the appellate authority i.e. the D.I.-G., Lahore Range/respondent No. 2. Since the very order on which these remarks were manifestly based has been set aside, there is no justification to maintain it any further.
2. The learned District Attorney could not successfully controvert the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, which is also borne out from the record and the rules on the subject. The appeal is accordingly accepted and the impugned adverse remarks are expunged. There are no orders as to costs.
M.Y.H./331/Sr. P Appeal allowed.