ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and others
The petitioner challenged the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period 1-1-1981 to 13-7-1981, which described his performance as below average. The reporting officer (Assistant Commissioner) recorded this rating, which was subsequently agreed upon by the second countersigning officer (Commissioner), despite the first countersigning officer (Deputy Commissioner) rating the performance as fair and average. After his representation for expunction was rejected and his appeal to the Service Tribunal was dismissed, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that the remarks were inconsistent because his performance was rated as average in Part II of the ACR but below average in Part III. The Supreme Court held that there was no inconsistency, as Part III requires a comparative assessment against other officers, which can result in a lower rating even if the officer is considered average in isolation. Finding no legal error or bias, the Court refused leave to appeal.
- Can an officer be rated as average in one part of an Annual Confidential Report and below average in another part without creating an inconsistency?
- Does a comparative assessment of an officer's performance against peers justify a lower rating than an individual performance assessment?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The annual confidential report of the petitioner for the period 1-1-1981 to 13- 7-1981 was recorded by the Assistant Commissioner City, Lahore. He described his performance as compared with the other officers as below average. While drawing his pen picture he observed that the petitioner had been transferred on complaint and required to mend his ways. The Deputy Commissioner who was the first countersigning officer, made the following entries:--- "His performance has been quite fair and at par with that of an average officer."
' The Commissioner who was the second countersigning officer, recorded the following remarks:-- "I agree with the reporting officer."
' In view of the observation made by the Commissioner, the remarks recorded by the Assistant Commissioner were conveyed to the petitioner. He filed a representation for their expunction. His representation was rejected whereupon he preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is stated that the remarks made by the Assistant Commissioner and endorsed by the Commissioner were contradictory. In this context, reference has been made to Part II of the A.C.R. Wherein the petitioner's performance has been described to be average.
Learned counsel argues that if the petitioner's performance was classed as average in Part II, it could not be described as below average in Part III of the report. There is little merit in this contention, for, in Part III, the performance of an officer is required to be compared with that of the other officers. Even though an officer may be described as average in Part II, his rating can go down when his overall performance is compared with that of the other officers of the same grade.
We can find no inconsistency in this regard.
3. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner had any personal reason to give adverse remarks to him. No question of law arises for consideration in this petition. Leave is refused.