Zahoor Hussain vs Principal Of G.C. Sahiwal, Etc.
This civil petition arose from the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had declined to expunge adverse remarks from his performance evaluation report. The petitioner contended that the adverse remarks were conjectural, biased, and recorded without any prior counseling, thereby causing grave prejudice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the reporting officer's assessment was biased and whether prior counseling had been provided. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed received written and verbal counseling from the Principal. It held that the reporting officer's appreciation of the petitioner's positive traits disproved any allegations of malice or bias. The Court laid down the principle that the subjective assessment of a civil servant's performance falls within the exclusive supervisory domain of the reporting officer and cannot be interfered with by courts unless convincing and cogent evidence of bias or illegality is produced. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the subjective assessment of a civil servant's performance by a reporting officer can be interfered with by courts in the absence of convincing and cogent evidence of bias?
- Does the appreciation of certain positive traits of an employee by a reporting officer negate the allegation of personal bias or malice in recording adverse remarks?
- Can adverse remarks in a performance evaluation report be expunged on the ground of lack of counseling if written and verbal advice was actually administered?
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J.- On failure to get adverse remarks expunged from department the petitioner approached Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by way of appeal which has been rejected vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
2. Syed Aqa Asif Jaffery, learned ASC appeared on behalf of petitioner and vehemently contended that the adverse remarks being conjectural, inconsistent and mala fide should have been expunged as no counseling whatsoever was rendered to the petitioner during his entire service and as such the adverse remarks would have no legal importance, It is contended that adverse remarks were recorded due to bias and cannot be equated to that of equitable assessment and thus liable to be expunged, It is painted out that the petitioner has unblemished record of service which is indicative of the fact that equitable assessment of the petitioner could not be made in accordance with his service record which resulted in grave prejudice against the petitioner.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner and perused the judgment impugned. A careful perusal of the entire record would indicate the prime contention of learned ASC that no counseling whatsoever was made seems to be fallacious as it was done by the Principal by means of letters, dated 20.2.1996 and 30.9.1996, besides the verbal advice given on various occasions. No malice or bias against the reporting officer could be proved. Had the reporting officer been biased, the petitioner would have not been able to get "good" reports regarding his intelligence, confidence, knowledge of Islam and knowledge towards ideology of Islam, It is worth mentioning that the power of expression, knowledge of work and analytical ability of the petitioner have been appreciated which could not have been done by a biased reporting officer. The question of subjective assessment in all relevant spheres squarely falls within the supervisory domain of reporting officer which cannot be interfered with unless some "convincing and cogent reasoning is available which is lacking in this case, In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in cases titled Azam Riaz Farooqi v. Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (1989 SCM R 320), Muhammad Naseem v. Secretary, Govt, of Punjab (1989 SCM R 1149). No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter persuading us to grant leave.
4. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice and being well based does not call for any interference. The petitions being meritless are dismissed and leave refused.