MUHAMMAD ZAYAUDDIN vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LOCUST), DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PROTECTION, SUKKUR and 2 others
This appeal was filed before the Federal Service Tribunal challenging the communication of Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) remarks as adverse for the period 1-1-1992 to 1-12-1992. The appellant, an Entomologist (Aerial) in B-18, contended that the remarks were not truly adverse, noting that he was graded 'Good' in several columns and 'Average' overall, and was deemed fit for promotion. The core legal question was whether an 'Average' A.C.R. constitutes an adverse remark that warrants intervention by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the reporting and countersigning officers had assessed the appellant as 'Average' and 'Fit for promotion,' which contradicted the department's classification of the report as adverse. The Tribunal held that an 'Average' report does not constitute an adverse entry. While acknowledging that an appeal against an 'Average' report is generally incompetent, the Tribunal ruled that because the department explicitly communicated the report as adverse and refused to expunge it, the court would clarify that no adverse inference could be drawn from the report, directing that it be treated as 'Average' and not used against the appellant.
- Does an 'Average' grading in an Annual Confidential Report constitute an adverse remark?
- Can an 'Average' Annual Confidential Report be used against a civil servant for promotion or other career purposes?
- Is an appeal against an 'Average' Annual Confidential Report maintainable before the Federal Service Tribunal?
' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against the adverse remarks recorded in A.C.R. Of appellant, Mr. Muhammad Zayauddin, who is working in B-18 as Entomologist (Aerial) for the period 1-1-1992 to 1-12-1992, communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 18th October, 1993. Being aggrieved, he made a representation dated 9-12-1993 but the same was rejected by the competent authority vide Memorandum dated 2nd April, 1994. He then filed this appeal on 28-4-1994 before this Tribunal.
' We have heard the appellant who argued his appeal himself. It is contended that there was no counselling or warning with regard to his assessment of performance was ever given and the remarks which have been communicated cannot at all be treated as adverse. It is also submitted that in some of the columns, he has been graded as `Good' and Overall Grading is `Average', therefore, these remarks have unnecessarily been communicated when he was found fit for promotion and an average officer by both the reporting and the countersigning officers.
3. Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, learned Standing Counsel has frankly stated that these remarks should not have been communicated when the reporting officer has himself assessed him 'so, so' which are consistent with the other gradings of other columns.
4. We have carefully perused the ACR. The reporting officer in Parts II, III and IV, in columns 'Intelligence' and Confidence and will power', `knowledge of Islam', 'Attitude towards Islamic Ideology', 'Integrity (a) General and (b) Intellectual', Foresight', 'Financial responsibility' and `Knowledge of Work' has been graded as 'Good', whereas 'Overall Grading' is average and 'Fit for promotion in his turn'. In Part V, column (a) Pen-Picture, the reporting officer has remarked 'Fit for Khairpur area'; in column (b) Counselling 'Not applicable' and in column (c) Assessment. Of Performance, `His performance is so so'. In Part VII, the countersigning officer has remarked 'I agree with the Reporting Officer. Remarks at Part V(c) are showing that reporting officer is not satisfied with the performance of the officer'; but in spite of that, he has agreed with the overall assessment `Average' and 'Fit for promotion in his turn', recorded by the reporting officer. The report read as a whole, and the ratings recorded by the reporting officer are compared with each other, there appears nothing adverse against the appellant, and particularly when the reporting officer has himself given him `Good' in some columns and overall grading is average.The countersigning officer has also agreed with the assessment of the reporting officer in all columns and in case he had some different opinion, he should have disagreed with the assessment of the reporting officer and as required under the rules should have also scored out the relevant gradings, according to his own assessm ent. This not having been done, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. Since the report is 'average', therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1992 SCM R 1427 (Province of Punjab v. Sardar Noor Ilahi Khan Laghari), this appeal is incompetent before this Tribunal. But we cannot overlook the fact that the impugned A.C.R. Has been communicated as being adverse, and while rejecting the departmental representation for expunction of adverse remarks, the competent Authority has clearly stated that the adverse remarks given in the A.C.R. Of 1992 will stay, therefore, we are of the view that no adverse inference shall be drawn from the remarks contained in the ACR of 1992 against the appellant and will not be used against him, and this A.C.R. Shall be treated as 'Average'. With these observations, the appeal succeeds in the above terms.
Cited by 1 case
- Fazal Raziq vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary 2022 PHC 314, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 20, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1419