KHALID MAHMOOD AHMAD vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) for the period between February 1994 and December 1994. The petitioner challenged the departmental authority's dismissal of his appeal without providing reasons, arguing this violated principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal's decision was influenced by extraneous considerations, specifically his prior reversion from the post of Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, which the Tribunal incorrectly assumed went unchallenged. The Supreme Court identified that the core legal questions involved the necessity of providing reasons for administrative decisions and the propriety of the Tribunal's reliance on extraneous factors in its adjudication. Finding that the contentions raised by the petitioner required deeper consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The judgment underscores the requirement for administrative authorities to provide reasoned orders and the necessity for judicial tribunals to base their findings strictly on relevant facts rather than extraneous circumstances.
- Is a departmental authority required to provide reasons when dismissing an appeal against adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
- Can a Service Tribunal rely on extraneous considerations, such as an unchallenged reversion, when adjudicating an appeal regarding adverse A.C.R. remarks?
- Does the failure to provide reasons for an administrative decision violate the principles of natural justice?
ORDER
' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment, dated 30-7- 1995, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Appeal No,212(R) of 1995 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was communicated adverse remarks in his A.C.R. For the period from 10-2-1994 to 22-12-1994, vide a letter dated 6-3-1994 issued by the G.H.Q. Rawalpindi. The petitioner filed departmental appeal against the said remarks, but the competent Authority dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons. He thereafter, filed service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was also dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Service Tribunal observed that:-
(i) the petitioner had been earlier reverted from the post of Deputy Chief Administrative Officer to the post of G-I for unsatisfactory record, and the petitioner had not challenged such reversion.
(ii) the petitioner had Mixed record, that in certain A.C.Rs, he had been rated good and very good, and considered to be intelligent, hardworking, cooperative and tactful and well-conversant with rules and regulations; whereas in certain other A.C.Rs, he had been rated as average, in some even below average.
' Aggrieved by the judgment of the Service Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed without assigning reasons, in violation of law and the principles of natural justice. In support, learned counsel has relied on 1991 SCM R 2330.
Learned counsel next contended that the Tribunal has not dealt with the disputed period of A.C.Rs, and was influenced in its judgment by extraneous consideration of reversion of the petitioner during his probationary period, on the basis that he had not challenged his reversion, whereas, in fact, he had challenged his reversion in the Supreme Court in Civil Petition No,180 of 1996, which was dismissed by this Court.
' Learned counsel further argued that in view of the above, the judgment of the Service Tribunal was erroneous and was not sustainable in law.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require consideration. Leave is accordingly, granted.