ABDUL GHAFFAR HASHMI vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Abdul Ghaffar Hashmi, a retired Assistant Accounts Officer, challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 26-5-1984, which dismissed his appeal against the refusal to allow him to cross the efficiency bar. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in law by considering annual confidential reports not part of the A.C.R. dossier on the relevant date and whether adverse remarks were a result of mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the crossing of efficiency bar is directly related to performance, for which annual confidential reports are the proper measure, and found no error in the Tribunal's view. The petition was dismissed as it lacked any substantial question of law of public importance, affirming that annual confidential reports form a valid basis for evaluating performance regarding the efficiency bar.
- Whether the crossing of an efficiency bar is directly related to the performance evaluation through annual confidential reports?
- Does the consideration of annual confidential reports by the Service Tribunal in matters of efficiency bar raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Abdul Ghaffar Hashmi who retired as Assistant Accounts Officer challenged the question of crossing of efficiency bar before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the relevant facts and service record of the petitioner declined the request of the petitioner as a result of which his appeal was dismissed on 26-5-1984. The petitioner has now filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal.
2. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that the Tribunal erred in law by taking into consideration the annual confidential reports which were not part of A.C.R. Dossier on the relevant date.
3. ' He further submitted that the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Of the petitioner were result of mala fide of the reporting officer.
4. The submission has no force. The Tribunal rightly observed, "It is all too well-known that the crossing of efficiency bar is directly related to the performance of an individual. There is no better measure of judging and evaluating this performance except from the A.C.Rs,".
5. ' The view taken by the Tribunal being in accordance with law and in the absence of any substantial question of law of public importance, we don't think the impugned judgment calls for any interference. Dismissed.