1994 S C M R 238
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Shafiur Rahman, Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ
WAPDA through its Chairman and another‑‑‑Appellants
versus
S.M. RIZWAN ABIDI‑‑‑Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 764 of 1990, decided on 7th October, 1992.
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated
31‑1‑1990, passed in Appeal No. 223(L)/87‑Old, 475(R)/89‑New).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether decision of Service
Tribunal expunging adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports of civil servant
for the specific years was based on any provision of law: ‑‑[Civil service].
(b) Civil service‑
‑‑‑‑ Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Adverse remarks in Annual
Confidential Reports requiring countersignatures of superior officer‑‑‑Service Tribunal
on knowledge of such fact should have treated Annual Confidential Reports as
incomplete and appeal to Service Tribunal to be premature, directing Authority
concerned to get those reports completed by countersigning officer before
communicating the adverse remarks.
(c) Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report ‑‑‑Expunction‑‑‑Complete copies
of Annual Confidential Reports need not be supplied to civil servant; nor delay in
communicating such reports by itself would entitle civil servant to get it expunged, nor
the fact that in earlier years his reports were good and he had been considered then fit
for promotion‑‑‑Such grounds would be extraneous to expunction of adverse remarks.
(d) Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Annual Confidential Report containing adverse remarks against civil servant being
incomplete for lack of .countersignatures of superior Officer, appeal to Service
Tribunal was premature, therefore, expunction order of Service Tribunal was set aside;
at the same time order of Departmental Authority treating such Annual Confidential
Reports to be adverse without getting them countersigned or for utilizing them as such
before getting those reports properly countersigned, was also set aside by Supreme
Court.
Ch. Ghulam Hassan Gulshan, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad,
Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
Hassan Ahmed Kanwar, Advocate for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th October, 1992.
JUDGMENT
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the
decision of the Service Tribunal expunging the adverse remarks in the Annual
Confidential Reports of the respondent for the years 1980, 1983 and 1984 was based
on any provision of law.
2. The respondent was an employee of the Federal Government. His services were
transferred to the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) on 14‑10‑1959.
While posted as Superintending Engineer his services were placed under the disposal
of Mechanised Construction of Pakistan Limited (MCPL) in 1974 and he was
repatriated therefrom in 1985. It was by a letter dated 14‑12‑1986 that adverse remarks
recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the part of the year 1980, whole of the
years 1983 and 1984 were communicated to him. He represented against it but was not
successful. He, therefore, sought their expunction from the Service Tribunal. The
Service Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the complete copies of .the
Annual Confidential Reports and the reports recorded by the officers were not supplied
to him, that the officer recording the reports was virtually of the rank of the respondent,
that the reports were not countersigned by the superior authority and were
communicated after inordinate delay and there was nothing against him during the
previous years. On these grounds the remarks in the reports were expunged.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that the moment the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the reports required the countersignatures of the
superior officer and the same were not there, it should have treated the reports as
incomplete reports and appeal to the Tribunal to be premature, directing the Authority
concerned to get the reports completed by the countersigning officer before
communicating the adverse remarks. The other grounds that the complete copies of the
Annual Confidential Reports were to be supplied to the respondent is not a requirement
of the law, nor delay by itself entitles the Government servant to get it expunged, nor
the fact that in the years earlier his reports were good and he had been considered then
fit for promotion. These grounds are extraneous to the matter in issue.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that while the officer/respondent
was in the Mechanised Construction of Pakistan Limited, there was no countersigning
officer. In that Organisation, apart from the Managing Director, there was the
Chairman and if he was not competent then his report should have come to the parent
department for necessary processing. Without the countersignatures of the superior
officer, the Annual Confidential Report still remains incomplete and cannot be
communicated as adverse report.
5. In the circumstances, we accept the appeal, set aside the expunction order and at the
same time set aside the order of the departmental authority treating these Annual
Confidential Reports to be adverse without getting them countersigned or for utilizing
them as such before getting these reports properly countersigned. With this
modification, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
AA./W‑115/S Order accordingly.
;
