FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Islamabad and anothers vs ZAKARIA KHAN BABAR
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which had accepted the respondent's service appeal and expunged adverse remarks contained in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) for the year 1991, along with alterations made therein. The core legal question was whether an A.C.R. could be altered subsequently by the writing officer and whether the Tribunal's finding of mala fide or improper alteration was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly concluded that an A.C.R. once written cannot be changed subsequently by the same officer, and any change in opinion must be expressed in a subsequent A.C.R. The Court also noted the delay of about three years in communicating the adverse remarks, which violated government instructions. Finding that the Tribunal's order was based on questions of fact and was just and equitable, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that an Annual Confidential Report cannot be altered subsequent to its writing by the concerned officer.
- Can an Annual Confidential Report once written be subsequently altered by the same reporting officer?
- Whether delay in communicating adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report violates government instructions?
- Does the alteration of an Annual Confidential Report subsequent to its writing raise a question of law of public importance?
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 31-7-1994 whereby learned Tribunal accepted service appeal filed by the respondent and expunged the adverse remarks contained in the A.C.R. Of the respondent for the year 1991 alongwith alteration and tempering made therein.
2. ' The learned counsel for the Federation while seeking leave to appeal contended that the alteration in the A.C.R. Was made at the time of writing of the A.C.R. And not subsequently and as such no illegality was committed. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there was no material before the learned Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the alteration of remarks in the A.C.R. Of the respondent was mala finely done and as such the order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
3. ' We have gone through the order of the Service Tribunal and found that the learned Tribunal on basis of the material produced before it reached the conclusion that the A.C.R. Of the respondent was changed subsequent to its writing by the concerned officer. This fact was not disputed before the Tribunal by the petitioners but it was contended that this alteration in the A.C.R. Of the respondent was necessary as the officer concerned found it expedient to change the entries which he had made earlier in the A.C.R. Of the respondent. The learned Tribunal has given very valid reasons for reaching the conclusion that the A.C.R. Once written could not be changed by the same officer and if there was any change in his opinion that should be expressed in the subsequent A.C.R.
4. Of the concerned officer/official. The observations made by the learned Tribunal are quite in accord with the instructions issued by the Government regarding writing of the A.C.R. Of Government servants. The learned Tribunal also noted in the impugned judgment that although A.C.R. Was written for the year 1991 but it was communicated to the respondent after about three years which was contrary to the instructions with regard to communication of adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs, of Government servants. The questions decided by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment are purely questions of facts and no question of law of public importance arises in the circumstances of the case. The order of the Tribunal otherwise appears to be a just and equitable order and no interference is called for with this order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- NUSRAT ALI SIDDIQUI Versus REGISTRAR 2015 PLC(CS) 659