Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 1431

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Additional Chief Secretary, Services

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 1431
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 882 of 1985
Date1989-07-23
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan
Authored byShafiur Rahman
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of the Punjab under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal expunging adverse remarks recorded in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) by a countersigning officer. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in expunging adverse remarks that were based merely on the general reputation of a Magistrate rather than on an assessment of actual performance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that the performance of a Magistrate must be evaluated through an expert assessment by a superior based on record and performance in individual cases, rather than mere general reputation. The Court laid down the principle that while detailed reasons are not required when recording ACR remarks, conclusions must be grounded in facts, and when challenged, the concerned reporting or countersigning officer must offer a plausible explanation to justify the adverse assessment.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report be justified solely on the basis of an officer's general reputation?
  • Is the Punjab Service Tribunal empowered to review and expunge adverse remarks recorded in an Annual Confidential Report?
  • What standard of proof or justification is required from a reporting officer when adverse remarks recorded in an ACR are contested by a civil servant?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Annual Confidential Reportexpungement of adverse remarksPunjab Service Tribunalservice lawgeneral reputationmagistrate performanceleave to appeal

' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Government of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23-3-1985 whereby the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report by the countersigning officer namely, the Commissioner, were ordered to be expunged.

2. Mr. M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner objected at first to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review or reconsider the recording of the remarks and to sit in judgments over their correctness or otherwise. Secondly, he also contested the propriety and the desirability of the interference by the Tribunal in this particular case. As regards the first ground Mr. Saeed Beg, the learned counsel has conceded that in view of various decisions of this Court it is no longer possible to contend that such a matter is outside the purview of the Tribunal. As regards the desirability or the propriety of interference, Mr. Saccd Beg has confined his submissions to the facts already taken note of by the Tribunal, namely, the Comments of the Commissioner that he made adverse remarks on the basis of general reputation enjoyed by the it Officer.

3. The performance of a magistrate is not so much a matter of reputation as of expert assessment by a superior from record and performance relatable to individual cases and situations. By resorting to the reputation as the source and not to the actual performance the Commissioner has justified his remarks by reference to a somewhat extraneous consideration. It is true that ordinarily, in recording remarks or opinions, full reasons need not be given but the conclusions have to be based on facts and when in contest, as in this case the concerned officer should have plausible explanation to justify his conclusions. In this case that was not adequately done and the Tribunal was justified in interfering with it.

4. No question of law of public importance is raised in the case. Hence leave to appeal is refused.

Cited by 7 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.