Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 18‑10‑1982 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Case No. 404/1800 of 1982).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 212(3)‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4-- Appeal‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the competency of appeal under S. 4 of the Act.

(b) Establishment Manual (Punjab), Vol. I‑

‑‑ Instructions about Confidential Reports, paras. 30, 19 & 2 --Annual Confidential Report‑What to form and time for initiation of confidential report.‑[Civil service].

A reference to the Instructions would reveal that by the Confidential Report forms, a clear picture of an Officer has to be reported upon with regard to amongst others his personal qualities, standard of performance, dealings with others, potential growth and his suitability for promotion to special posts according to individual aptitude. The space provided for the pen‑picture gives to the Reporting Officer the opportunity to express his views regarding any other special quality, merit or shortcoming which he may wish to record.

Instruction No. 19 provides a guideline such as impartial, forthright and unambiguous for assessing the performance of the Government servant.

These are of utmost importance for comprehending the characteristics listed in the Annual Conndential Forms. If the reporting officer is partial, his opinion is likely to cause incalculable damage to the officer reported upon, and again if it is ambiguous or carelessly written, it would not represent the result of careful consideration so that if called upon the reporting officer will not be able to justify his opinion and such a lapse would definitely defeat the purpose of the report. Therefore, the merits of the officer reported upon should be judged from an absolutely detached objective point of view and to attain this object the A. C. R. forms are so designed as to leave a very little scope for sketchy, vague or subjective assessment.

As for the time schedule, Instruction No. 2 provides that it should be initiated within the prescribed time, that is, the first week of January and should relate to a calendar year. The purpose is two‑fold, firstly, that subsequent events may not consciously or unconsciously, contribute in the formation of the opinion in respect of the reporting year ; and, secondly, that the case for promotions and appointments cannot be properly judged in the absence of up‑to‑date Annual Confidential Reports, which results in frustration amount the Government servants.

However, while construing this Instruction, there cannot be in every case a rigid compliance of the time schedule ; and for this, the reason is not far to seek as there may be cases where, while judging the cases of Govern ment servants for promotion and appointment, there may not be up‑to- date Annual Confidential Reports in which‑case the missing reports are to be called for a fuller consideration of the merits. (Reference in this connection may be made to Rule 230‑A of the Guide to Performance Evaluation, O & M Division, Public Administration Research Centre, Islamabad, which provides for the rendering of missing character rolls or their recon struction). There may be other instances where because of the large number of Government servants and their widely dispersed postings, it may not be possible to complete their Annual Confidential Reports within the time schedule for many justifiable reasons. Yet there might be other cases where for some technical reason, the Annual Confidential Reports cannot be initiated at the proper time. Such instances are not exhaustive of the cases where time schedule cannot be rightly followed. Designedly, there fore, no penal consequence was postulated for contravening the time schedule. Accordingly, this Instruction is directory in nature.

The Instructions only refer to adverse remarks whether remediable or not and not to the advisory remarks. However, the technical meaning of advisory remarks will be found in Rule 3.15 of the Guide to Performance Evolution, O. M. Division, Public Administration Research Centre, Islamabad.

(c) Guide to Performance Evaluation---

----R. 3.15‑Annual Confidential Report ‑ Advisory remarks ‑Purpose‑Advisory remark itself would have no stigma on civil servant but is conveyed as a matter of caution for civil servant to correct himself,‑[Civil service].

The Instructions only refer to adverse remarks whether remediable or not and not to the advisory remarks However the technical meaning of advisory remarks will be found in Rule 3.15 of the Guide to Performance Evaluation, O. M. Division; Public Administration Research Centre, Islamabad.

The purpose of such remarks is to inform the officer to correct himself and it is only when he fails to do so that it comes in his way for further promotion. The Tribunal while failing to notice the true meaning of the Advisory remarks and by way of resolving the controversy as to whether it was adverse or not, chose to quash the remarks from the Annual Con fidential Report with a view to remove any doubt as to its meaning. This is not the application of mind to a remark which had its own meaning and which he Tribunal failed to determine. The fact that it was treated as an advisory remark itself shown that it had no stigma for the present, but was conveyed as a matter of caution for the respondent to correct himself.

(d) Administration of Justice‑

‑‑ Service Tribunal while dealing with question of delay in recording A. C. R. observed "it has taken seven months for Reporting Officer (Acting Chief Justice of High Court) to make this observation " Such remarks, held, gave an impression of an aspersion on the Acting Chief Justice.

The‑Tribunal while dealing with the question of delay in recording tile report; said :

"It has taken seven months more for the Reporting Officer (Acting Chief Justice) to make this observation."

These remarks give an impression of an aspersion on the Acting Chief Justice and they not only tend to undermine the discipline amongst the members of the judicial service, but also are wholly uncalled for against the administrative head of the institution which enjoys constitutional independence. It would have been better had the Tribunal selected better words to respectfully express it if at all there was an occasion for it, which, however, did not exist in the present case.

Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.

Sh. Ziaullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch., M. Aslam, Advocate-on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 21st May, 1986.

JUDGEMENT

MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C. J.

‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the competency of the appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that the respondent during the year 1980 served as a District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, and for this year the following remarks were recorded in his Annual, Confidential Report:

"Needs tact to deal with public and his subordinates."

The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore, by letter, dated 9th of September, 1981, conveyed these remarks. In para. 2 of the letter it was stated that "the Chief Justice and Judges expect that you will rake efforts to remove the defects pointed out above and improve in work/conduct.

The respondent thereupon represented to the Registrar his grievance by letter dated 12th of October, 1981 and desired that be should be supplied with the material on which this assessment was made in accordance with para. 30 of the Instructions about "Confidential Reports" contained in the Establishment Manual, Volume I, issued by the Services, General Administration and Information Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore. By letters dated 6^th of July, 1982, the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore, informed the respondent that the representation was duly considered "by the Honourable Judges of this Court who were pleased to observe that the remarks are not adverse but are of "advisory nature".

Not being satisfied with the communication, dated 6th of July, 1982, the respondent tiled an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal and challenged the recording of the remarks on the grounds : firstly, that the remarks now being stated as of advisory nature are nowhere prescribed as such under the Act or the rules and that, in effect, these remarks were adverse and in substance were vague and ambiguous ; secondly, that despite repeated representations the material for the recording of the remarks was not supplied ; thirdly, that the remarks were recorded after the period prescribed for recording it had lapsed ; and, lastly, that the remarks could not be recorded by the Chief justice alone as he was not competent to do so. It was, accordingly, prayed that the remarks be expunged from the file of the Annual Confidential Reports.

In reply, it was contended before the Tribunal that as the Reporting Officer had held the remarks not to be adverse but only advisory in nature, it had removed the stigma and further that such a remark could be given by the Reporting Officer pursuant to the powers given to him under the Instructions. It was next contended that it will now be an exercise in futility to deal with the appeal which should be disposed of as having become infructuous.

Upon a reference to the Instructions on the subject, the Tribunal held that the "report should have been initiated in the first week of January, 1981 but it has taken seven months more for the Reporting Officer (Acting Chief Justice) to make this observation."

The Tribunal next accepted the contention of the respondent that as he was recommended for Grade‑20 on two occassions, in December 1980 and May, 1981 and also recommended for the post of Legal Adviser to F. A. O. U. N. in 1981, the remarks could not then be referable to the reporting year 1980 but to the year 1981 and must have been made on the basis of some documentary evidence. However, no finding was given on the submission made by the respondent that the Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court was not competent to record the Annual Confidential Report. As to the meaning of the remarks, the Tribunal itself was doubtful and to remove that doubt it held as under:

"We are of the considered opinion that this controversy must be resolved and it would be appropriate to remove any doubt that may struck to it of about being not adverse. The fact cannot be denied that this entry was conveyed as adverse and it was only on repre sentation, that the observation was mellowed and captioned as advisory in nature. To our considered mind it would be in the interest of justice to wipe it of from the A. C. R. so that no doubt remains about its efficacy by our judicial pronouncement."

Accordingly, the Tribunal expunged the entry from the A. C. R. for the year 1980 by order, dated 18th of October, 1982.

A reference to the Instructions would reveal that by the Confidential Report forms, a clear picture of an officer has to be reported upon with regard to amongst others his personal qualities, standard of performance dealings with others, potential growth and his suitability for, promotion to special posts according to individual aptitude. The space provided for the pen‑picture gives to the reporting officer the opportunity to express his views regarding any other special quality, merit or shortcoming which he may wish to record.

Instruction No. 19 provides a guideline such as impartial, forthright and unambiguous for assessing the performance of the Government servant, These are of utmost importance for comprehending the characteristics listed in the Annual Confidential forms. If the Reporting Officer is partial his opinion is likely to cause incalculible damage to the officer reported upon, and again if it is ambiguous or carelessly written, it would not repre sent the result of careful consideration so that if called upon the Reporting Officer will not be able to justify his opinion and such a lapse would definitely defeat the purpose of the report. Therefore, the merits of the officer reported upon should be judged from an absolutely detached objective point of view and to attain this object the A. C. R. forms are sc designed as to leave a very little scope for sketchy, vague or subjective assessment.

As for the time schedule, Instruction No. 2 provides that it should be initiated within the prescribed time, that is, the first week of January and should relate to a calendar year. The purpose is two‑fold firstly, that subsequent events may 'not consciously or unconsciously contribute in the formation of the opinion in respect of the reporting year ; and, secondly that the cases for promotions and appointments cannot be properly judged in the absence of up‑to‑date Annual Confidential Reports, which results is frustration amongst the Government servants.

However, while construing this Instruction, there cannot be in every case a rigid compliance of the time schedule : and for this, the reason is not far to seek as there may be cases where while judging the cases of Government servants for promotion and appointment there may not be up‑to‑date Annual Confidential Reports in which case the missing reports) are to be called for a fuller consideration of the merits. (Reference in this connection may be made to Rule 2.30‑A of the Guide to Performance Evaluation, O & M Division, Public Administration Research Centre, Islamabad, which provides for the rendering of missing character rolls of their reconstruction). There may be other instances where because of the large number of Government servants and their widely dispersed postings, it may not be possible to complete their Annual Confidential Reports within the time schedule for many justifiable reasons Yet there might be other cases where for some technical reason, the Annual Confidential Report cannot be initiated at the proper time. Such instances are not exhaustive of the cases where time schedule cannot be rigidly followed. Designedly, therefore, no penal consequence was postulated for contravening the time schedule. Accordingly, this Instruction is directory in nature.

Upon an examination of the judgment, we find that the Tribunal has only commented upon the non‑compliance of the time schedule. The reasons for not initiating the report, however, are not on record. In its absence the rationale seems to be that the Acting Chief Justice could not have been in a position to give the Annual Confidential Report of the respondent for the reporting year after seven months and this inability, therefore, may well have accounted for the giving of the advisory remarks after having recommended the respondent twice for the higher grade and for his appointment as Legal Officer to the F. A. O./U.N. Therefore, the conclusion drawn was that the subsequent events during the year 1951 had contributed towards the formation of the advisory remarks. We are con strained to say that there was no material to hold as the Tribunal did that the opinion of the Reporting Officer was influenced by subsequent events, and in drawing such a conclusion the Tribunal grossly erred to hold so.

It would not be out of place to mention that the respondent had represented against the remarks and his representation was duly considered by the Judges of the Lahore High Court and that decision was communica ted to the respondent that they were not adverse, but advisory in nature which by itself showed that it was an objective assessment, but no emphasis was laid to this consideration by the Tribunal. As to what impelled the reporting officer in make such remarks, it must be on credible information or his own personal observation or more likely based on the reports of the inspecting Judges. To say that this material was subsequently gathered after the close of the reporting year is farfetched and an erroneous conclusion. We may here observe that the result of the representation by the respondent evidently showed the justification of the remarks which should have been given the highest consideration as amanating from the Judges of the High Court. But we regret to says that the Tribunal did not pay any heed to it and rested its conclusion an baseless and hypothetical considerations. The recommendations earlier made rested on the quality of performance and other objective assessment of the respondent which it was not difficult to visualize had the Tribunal given due consideration to it. In this milieu to say that the remarks could not refer to the reporting year as the respondent was recommended twice for a higher grade is again without substance as the remarks do not come in the way of promotion but they the only remediable in nature.

The Instruction only refer to adverse remarks whether remediable or not and not to the advisory remarks. However, the technical meaning of C advisory remarks will be found in Rule 3.15 of the Guide to Performance Evaluation, O. M. Division, Public Administration Research Centre, Islamabad. They are defined as such :‑

"Advisory remarks are not to be treated as adverse for the purpose of promotion unless it is established that the officer concerned has not paid any heed to the piece of advice given to him and has failed to show any improvement."

The purpose of such remarks is to inform the officer to correct himself and it is only when he fails to do so that it comes in his way for further promotion. The Tribunal failed to notice the true meaning of the remarks and by way of resolving the controversy as to whether it was adverse or not, it chose to quash the remarks from the Annual Confidential Report with a view to remove any doubt as to its meaning. This is not the appli cation of mind to a remark which had its own meaning and which the Tribunal failed to determine. The fact that it was treat as an advisory remark itself showed that it had no stigma for the present, but was conveyed as a matter of caution for the respondent to correct himself.

The Tribunal while dealing with the question of delay in recording the) report, said;

"It has taken seven months more for the Reporting Officer (Acting Chief Justice) to make this observation."

These remarks give an impression of an aspersion on the Acting Chief, Justice and, in our view, they not only tend to undermine the discipline amongst the members of the judicial service, but also are wholly uncalled for against the administrative head of the institution which enjoys constitu tional independence. It would have been better had the Tribunal selected better words to respectfully express it if at all there was an occasion for it which, however, did not exist in the present case.

Although a submission was made as to incompetency of the Acting Chief Justice to initiate the report nonetheless the Tribunal did not deter mine this question. Suffice it to say that the Acting Chief Justice, being the head of judicial administration, enjoys plenary powers over all matters con cerning the members of the judicial service, and in that capacity, having regard to the rules and instructions, he must be regarded as competent to initiate reports. This is besides other legal justifications. As to the competency of the Tribunal to entertain appeals, no argument was addressed before the Tribunal and none before us. Hence we do not consider it proper to go into this question.

Concluding, we are of the view that the Tribunal was in error to have expunged the remarks from the Annual Confidential Report of the respondent, which we restore and allow the appeal, but will no order as to costs.

M. B. A. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer