GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS And Other vs FEDERAL SERVICE
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Service Tribunal whereby an adverse annual confidential report of respondent No.2 for the period from 1-1-1994 to 31-12-1994, characterizing him as an unwilling worker, was expunged due to the lack of pre-counselling as required under the rules. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the expungement of the adverse entry was uncalled for when fourteen other adverse reports were allegedly issued against the respondent with advice to improve, which were not produced before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the necessity of pre-counselling and the existence of multiple adverse reports. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted to examine whether the Service Tribunal erred in expunging adverse entries where department contentions regarding prior notice and multiple adverse reports require deeper examination.
- Whether the expungement of an adverse annual confidential report by the Service Tribunal is justified when pre-counselling was allegedly not required due to multiple similar adverse reports?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when the department contends that other adverse reports issued against an employee were not considered by the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 approached the Service Tribunal with grievance that his annual confidential report for the period from 1-1-1994 to 31-12-1994 was adverse in nature alleging him to be as unwilling worker which was done without pre-counselling as is requirement under the rules. Written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner department and the allegation was denied. In the result, after hearing, the adverse entry has been expunged by the Service Tribunal.
2. It has been urged before us that there was no need for pre---counselling for the reason that on the same ground fourteen other reports were issued by the department, which were adverse in nature on the same ground with advice that he should improve his condition and become a willing worker. These reports were not produced because there was no allegation in the service appeal of the petitioner that there were other entries against him, which were adverse in nature. It is contended that in these circumstances expungment of the remarks was uncalled for.
3. Leave is granted to consider the above contentions. .