Mian MUHAMMAD MOHSIN RAZA vs Miss RIFAT SHEIKH and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Service Tribunal regarding a seniority dispute. The petitioner, appointed as a Civil Judge on regular basis, had received adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report, which were partially modified to advisory nature on representation, though remarks of being not yet fit for promotion remained. He was initially deferred for promotion due to a patchy record but subsequently promoted within four months on the same record. His subsequent departmental representation and service tribunal appeal regarding seniority placement below respondents were unsuccessful. The core legal question is whether adverse remarks unsupported by any material on record can be taken into consideration against a civil servant. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any supporting material on record, adverse remarks cannot be considered. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question.
- Whether adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report can be taken into consideration in the absence of any supporting material on the record?
- Does the promotion of a civil servant shortly after being deferred on the basis of a patchy record affect the validity of prior adverse remarks?
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge on regular basis through Public Service Commission on 18-12-1985. Petitioner earned adverse remarks in his A.C.R. For the period 2-6-1988 to 10-9-1988. He filed a departmental representation whereupon adverse remarks were directed to be treated as "piece of advice", however, in the A.C.R. Adverse remarks "below average" and "not yet fit for promotion" were left to remain. In 1992, petitioner, alongwith his batch mates, was considered for promotion but his name was withdrawn with remarks that on account of patchy record he was not promoted vide notification 21-6-1992. Subsequently, by means of another notification dated 26-10-1992, petitioner was promoted as Senior Civil Judge. In the meanwhile, seniority list was published on 19-11-1992, wherein, petitioner was shown junior to respondents Nos.1 to 8. He filed departmental representation which failed on 2-5-1993. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before Service Tribunal which was dismissed on 1-2-1999, therefore, the present petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the file. Adverse remarks, in the pen picture, were treated to be advisory in nature yet in the other columns of A.C.R., wherein it was recorded "not yet fit for promotion" were not scored off. We repeatedly asked the learned Law Officer, appearing for the respondent to show any material on the basis of which adverse remarks in para.6 of A.C.R. Were recorded. No material was available on the file of the petitioner. Another striking feature is that petitioner was ignored for promotion on account of patchy record on 18-4- 1992 and, thereafter, within four months, on the same record, he was promoted. We feel, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any material , available on the record in any shape, adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Could not be taken into consideration.
' We accordingly grant leave to appeal to consider the above point.