Syed SHAUKAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH
The petitioner, a Superintending Engineer who had suffered an attack of hemiplegia, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal regarding the refusal of departmental authorities to expunge adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1983. The core legal question was whether medical fitness certificates issued by Medical Boards rendered the adverse remarks concerning his mental and physical performance invalid. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal must be dismissed, reasoning that medical boards are only concerned with fitness to resume duty and cannot comment on job performance, whereas departmental authorities are exclusively competent to assess work quality. The key principle laid down is that medical fitness to resume duties does not invalidate or negate departmental assessments regarding the professional performance and capabilities of a civil servant.
- Whether medical fitness certificates issued by Medical Boards are relevant in adjudging the quality of work and performance of a civil servant?
- Are departmental authorities competent to assess the performance of an employee despite a medical board declaring them fit to resume duty?
- Does the recording of adverse remarks regarding mental and physical capacity by a reporting officer warrant interference when based on actual performance?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 16-11-1985 of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the refusal of the departmental authorities to expunge adverse remarks given to him for the year 1983.
2. The petitioner was a Superintending Engineer serving in the Public Health Engineering Department. In September 1980 he had an attack of right hemiplegia. He remained on leave till June 1981. After he had been declared physically fit by the Medical Board he resumed his duties.
While recording his A.C.R. For the year 1983 the Chief Engineer observed:- "Due to few paralysis attacks the health of the officer particularly the mental health has effected very adversely. His thinking power is zero. He cannot speak well, think well, acts well. Mentally and physically below average which can be judged from the A.C.Rs. Written by him and interview if granted by Government.
Further:- His overall performance was poor. He cannot write even. It will be in his own interest as well as of the department if he is retired honorably. He is a burden to the department."
The countersigning authority agreed with the observations of the Chief Engineer and added:- "I agree with the C.E's. Report. Hardly marks the grade."
These remarks were duly communicated to the petitioner. He made a representation for their expunction which was rejected. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but without any success He now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the tribunal.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that two Medical Boards nave found him entirely fit to resume duty and as such the observations of the Chief Engineer and the countersigning authority with regard to his mental and physical health are without any foundation. It is difficult to accept this contention. The Medical Boards which were constituted to examine him were entirely concerned with the question whether he was fit to resume duty. They did not and could not possibly comment upon his performance as Superintending Engineer. On the other hand, the departmental authorities who had an occasion to watch his performance after the attacks were alone competent to assess his performance. The reports of the Medical Boards are entirely irrelevant in adjudging the, quality of his work. No substantial question of law arises in this case. The petition is accordingly dismissed.