MAZULLAH KHAN vs HEAD, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PESHAWAR

' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J. - This appeal by leave, is directed against the judgment, dated 31 - 12 - 2002 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby Appeal No,326(P) of 1998, instituted by the appellant against the order, dated 11 - 6 - 1998 of termination of his service, was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts are, that the appellant was appointed as Area Manager "B" category vide appointment letter, dated 1 - 6 - 1995. The detailed appointment order, dated 24 - 7 - 1995 set out the conditions of service, the relevant provision whereof, reads as under: - "4. Review. - Your performance will be reviewed by the Zonal Head under Rule 4(ii)c(i) and (2) State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 on a six monthly basis or for such shorter periods as may be deemed necessary by the Board.

' If on such review it is found that your performance falls short of the prescribed standards, such measures including, but not limited to reduction curtailment or withdrawal of youremployments or perquisites or all such measures together, shall be taken by the Zonal Head as may be generally or specifically prescribed by the Board. (underlining is ours).

' The performance standards prescribed by the Board require you to maintain costs both direct (excluding incentive and additional incentive bonus) and office expenses respectively within 5% each, fulfil your annual quota and ensure that your persistency ratio is not lower than 70%. Failure to achieve all or any of these requirements will necessitate curtailment of your emoluments or taking any or all such measures as prescribed above."

3. In the review of the appellant's performance for the year 1997, the same was found to be poor and he was served with a show-cause notice, which reads as under:-- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Zonal Office, Peshawar Mr. Maazullah Khan, May 12, 1998 Area Manager, State Life, Peshawar Zone.

Sub. Show-cause notice.

' In terms of your appointment letter dated 1-6-1995, you were required to achieve annual FYP quoted of your category along with 70% persistency every year. Your actual performance during the year 1997 as against required quota was as follows:-- First year premium 353,147 Second year persistency 54.61% ' In view of your poor performance, you are hereby called upon to explain the reasons, why your services as Area Manager should not be terminated under Regulation No,4(ii) (c) (2) of State Life Employees (Service) Regulation, 1973.

' Your reply should reach the undersigned within 7 days of the receipt of this letter, failing which it shall be presumed that you have no defence to offer and an ex parte action, as mentioned above, shall be taken against you.

(Sd.) Sher Ali Khan, Zonal Head.

4. In his reply dated 22-5-1998, the appellant admitted the poor performance and attributed the same mainly to the economic depression in the country for the year 1997. The competent authority found the reply unsatisfactory and terminated his services as Area Manager with immediate effect, vide order, dated 11-6-1998, under Regulation No,4(ii)(c)(2) of the State Life Employees (Service)

Regulations, 1973, against which his departmental appeal dated 29-6-1998 remained unresponded. His appeal, as mentioned above, was dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad vide impugned judgment, dated 31-12-2002, the relevant part of which reads as under:- - "Admittedly the State Life Insurance Corporation is a commercial organization whose financial viability and health depends on performance of its field employees. The Organization cannot afford to retain employees who cease to be productive and are financial burden on it. It is for this reason that there is emphasis on achievement of standards and targets and review, of the performance of Area Managers, In this connection apart from clause 4 of the order of appointment of the appellant regulation 4(ii)(c)(1) and (2) of the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 read:-- (c)(1) An Area Manager shall be required to meet such performance standards regarding new business, persistency and other operational factors as the Board may prescribe from time to time.

(2) The performance of an Area Manager shall be reviewed by the Zonal Head on a six monthly basis or for such shorter periods as may be deemed necessary by the Board.

' If on such review it is found that his performance falls short of the prescribed standards, the Zonal Head may terminate his services after giving him three months', notice or three months pay in lieu thereof such measures, including but not limited to reduction, curtailment or withdrawal of his emoluments or perquisite ,or all such measures together; shall be taken by the Zonal Head as may be generally or specifically prescribed by the Board."

5. The appellant, who pleaded his case personally, submitted that on the basis of his good performance in the lower rank, he was promoted as Area Manager, he had achieved targets in 1995 and 1996 but could not achieve them in 1997 because of poor economic conditions in the country. He also submitted that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to terminate the services of an Area Manager on the ground of poor performance. He has placed reliance in Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another v. Ali Muhammad Bangash 2002 SCM R 936 and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. State Life Insurance and others 2002 SCM R 950.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel representing the State Life Insurance Corporation while opposing the appeal and supporting the impugned judgment, has submitted that the appellant's performance was poor, it was competently reviewed and his services were terminated in accordance with regulations. It has also been pointed out that his performance for the year 1996 was also not upto the mark. The learned counsel has also placed his reliance on an unreported judgment, dated 3-10-2003 passed by this Court whereby C.Ps. Nos.1213 to 1215 of 2003, instituted by the respondent-Corporation, were converted into appeals and allowed.

' We have heard both the parties and have also seen the available record.

7. It is an admitted fact that appellant's performance for the year 1997 was poor It is also an admitted fact that the respondent's Corporation is a Commercial Organization whose existence depends on the performance of its employees. His appointment order, dated 24-7-1995 (relevant para. Reproduced above), clearly stressed on the performance standards and in case of poor performance or the performance falling short of the prescribed standards, the competent authority was competent to terminate the appellant's services under regulations mentioned in the show-cause notice, which has been reproduced above. The appellant has not been able to show any illegality in the same. In identical situation, this Court, after taking into consideration the relevant aspects of such-like cases, vide judgment, dated 3-10-2003 passed in C.Ps. Nos.1213 to 1215 of 2003, held as follows:-- "It is an admitted position that for the concerned year as it was alleged in the show-cause notices the respondents have failed to achieve the target of business assigned to thefn by the competent authority for which each of them is responsible independently. As per the tens and conditions of the respondents' service, their performance was liable to be reviewed by the Zonal Head under Rule 4(ii) (C) (1) and (2) of the State Life Employees Service Regulation, 1973 on six months basis or for such shorter period as may be deemed necessary by the Board. Thus in exercise of such powers the competent authority in view of admitted material on record reviewed the performance of the respondents individually and concluded that they have failed to achieve the requisite target. It is to be seen that in organizations like Insurance Companies etc. Every member is bound to contribute towards its commercial advancement failing which no one else will share responsibility with him and he had to loose the assignment on account of poor performance."

7-A. Since the respondents had not shown good performance as they failed to achieve the target of business, therefore, the petitioner legally dismissed their services rejecting the explanation submitted by them for not doing so.

8. In view of above discussion instant petitions are converted into appeals. The impugned judgment dated 28th February, 2003 is set aside, as a result whereof appeals filed by the respondents before Service Tribunal are dismissed.

8-A. The judgments relied upon by the appellant are not relevant. In Chairman State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another v. Ali Muhammad Bangash (supra). The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. No law was laid down. The respondents' petition was dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law of public importance was either involved or made out in the petition which was a case of personal grievance and the Service Tribunal had merely decided a question of fact, to which no exception could be taken. In Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf v. State Life Insurance and others (supra). Merely a leave was granted. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. Even otherwise no substantial question of law of public importance is involved to attract jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

' In view of the above mentioned, this appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.