Ch. SAEED AHMAD vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Ministry
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 16-7-1995, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period 1-1-1990 to 11-8-1990. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal was justified in maintaining adverse ACR remarks where the employee had produced material demonstrating potential personal bias on the part of the Reporting and Countersigning Officers, and where the employee's work performance during the exact same period had been explicitly commended by his superiors. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the allegations of personal grudge and bias, along with the contemporaneous commendation of the petitioner's performance and procedural delay in conveying the remarks, required detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that adverse remarks in an ACR may be subject to judicial scrutiny where credible evidence of bias or inconsistency with official commendations is presented.
- Whether adverse remarks in an ACR can be sustained when there is evidence of bias on the part of the reporting officer?
- Is the Maintenance of adverse ACR remarks justified where the civil servant's performance during the same period was officially commended by superiors?
- Does procedural delay in communicating adverse ACR remarks affect their legal validity?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order of dismissal of his appeal, by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 16-7-1995.
2. The petitioner was given adverse remarks for the period from 1-1-1990 to 11-8-1990 by his Reporting Officer, which were countersigned by the Countersigning Officer. The adverse remarks in respect of the above period were conveyed to the petitioner after about six months of the period prescribed therefore. The adverse remarks were challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal because of the personal grudge and biased attitude of respondent No.2 and further that the petitioner had already applied to the Finance Division that his A.C.R. For 1990 should not be allowed to be initiated/countersigned by respondent No.2 because he had already spoiled the A.C.Rs. Of the petitioner for the years 1988-89; and that the performance of the petitioner had throughout been held as excellent
3. We have heard the petitioner in person and have perused the record. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the Tribunal was justified in maintaining the adverse remarks in question in spite of the fact that the petitioner had brought on the record some material to indicate that the Reporting and Countersigning Officers particularly Mr. Mansoor Alam Aqil had some personal reasons which might have promoted him to record the above adverse remarks and also keeping in view that the performance of the petitioner during the above period had been commended inasmuch as his work during that period had been appreciated by his superiors.