Find a Lawyer

Case No. 53/46 of 1985, decided on 25^th January, 1986.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑

---

‑‑‑S.4 Appellate jurisdiction Invoking of‑‑Adverse remarks‑ Expunction‑‑Countersigning Authority while disagreeing with Reporting Officer, passing adverse remarks against employee‑‑Countersigning authority, held, would be under obligation to give reasons for such disagreement and to justify his assessment‑‑Where countersigning authority was in disagreement with assessment of Reporting Officer, requirement would be to score out with red ink relevant column against which disagreement was to be expressed‑‑Non‑following of mandatory requirement would render such remark as expressed by countersigning authority to be expunged by Service Tribunal in appellate jurisdiction.

Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25^th January, 1986.

.‑‑Ch. Shaukat Ali Khan Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Chiniot has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local Government Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks for the period 1‑1‑1976 to 15‑6‑1976, given to him by the Commissioner, as countersigning authority, be set aside as without justification as well as against law.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant's performance was adjudged by the Reporting Officer in certain column as good and in certain columns as average. However, no adverse remarks were given to him. When the case was forwarded to the learned Commissioner who was countersigning authority, recorded remarks as 'below average'. He made a representation to the next higher authority, which has been considered and rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the rules when the countersigning authority does not agree with the assessment of the Reporting Officer, it is incumbent upon him to record his reason for doing so, as well as to score out the remarks to which he disagrees so made by the Reporting Officer. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this has not been done in this case, as neither the learned Commissioner has given reason for disagreeing with the report of the Reporting Officer nor he followed the mandatory provisions of not scoring the column with which he has expressed his disagreement.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the assessment made by the Commissioner according to his justification is that it was his own assessment and, therefore, the same was correct. Learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and submitted that Commissioner being the supervisory officer was .within his right to give his opinion about the work and conduct of this officer.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that according to the instructions so laid down in this behalf, the Commissioner was under obligation as countersigning authority to give reasons for disagreement and to justify his assessment, but he has failed to do so. Similarly, it is laid down in the instructions that if the countersigning authority was in disagreement with the assessment of the Reporting Officer, he would be under obligation to score out with red ink relevant column against which he had expressed his disagreement. As this mandatory provision is not followed, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the impugned adverse remarks be expunged forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.

A.A. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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