Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AFZAL AHMED HYDRI VS Respondent: CHIEF SCIENTIST AND SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR, DESTO, RAWALPINDIHonorable Justice NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI,Niaz Ahmed Khan
1995 P L C (C
1995 P L C (C.S.) 1000
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chairman and Noor Muhammad Magsi, Member
Syed AFZAL AHMED HYDRI
Versus
CHIEF SCIENTIST AID SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR, DESTO, RAWALPINDI
Appeal No. 84(K) of 1994, decided on 24th May, 1995.
Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Adverse remarks ‑‑‑Expunction‑‑‑Adverse remarks/below average grading recorded in different parts under columns of A.C.R. of civil servant and duly communicated to him, had been sought by civil servant to be expunged‑‑‑Civil servant had contended that Reporting Officer belonged to same discipline to which civil servant belonged and that he being Incharge of civil servant, was in better position to have judged his performance and conduct than the Countersigning Officer who belonged to different discipline, and was not so familiar as Reporting Officer, with the job and work of civil servant‑‑‑Civil servant contended that assessment made by Reporting Officer was to prevail over that of Countersigning Officer, but unfortunately the Reporting Officer had also graded civil servant as "below average" in more than one columns‑‑‑Assessment and remarks, recorded by Countersigning Officer, who was Director and local head of the Laboratories concerned and also had supervisory and administrative role, were real reflection on work and conduct of civil servant which he made by closely watching performance and work of civil servant‑‑‑Opinion of Supervisory Officer under the Rules always prevailed over opinion of subordinate officer‑‑‑Held, Countersigning Officer was justified in writing his assessment on work and performance of civil servant in his A.C.R. there being no inconsistency between his assessment and that of Reporting Officer so far as performance of work .and devotion to duty was concerned nor there was any element of bias and mala fide involved‑‑‑Civil servant had failed to make out case for expunction of adverse remarks in circumstances.
1991 SCMR 2330 and Province of Punjab v. Sardar Noor Ilahi Khans Leghari 1992 SCMR 1427 ref.
Appellant in person.
Niaz Ahmed Khan, Standing Counsel for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th May, 1995.
JUDGMENT
NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).‑‑‑Appellant Mr. Syed Afzal Ahmed Hydri was working as Research Officer at the relevant time in the DESTO Laboratories, when he was communicated certain adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the period January, 1993 to December, 1993, by the Countersigning Officer, Mr. S. Zia Mehdi Rizvi, Director of Laboratories, DESTO Labs. Karachi. The adverse remarks impugned in this appeal were communicated to the appellant vide D.O. Letter, dated 5th March, 1994 and the appellant made a representation on 2‑4‑1994 against those remarks, but the same was turned down vide letter, dated 3rd May, 1994. Being aggrieved, he filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 19‑5‑1994.
2. The appellant argued the appeal himself, contending that the reporting officer Dr. Farrukh Mirza belongs to the discipline of `Mycology' to which the appellant also belongs and he being Incharge of the appellant, was in better position to have judged his performance and conduct, whereas, the countersigning officer is Ph.D. Microbiology, and was not so familiar as the reporting officer was, with the job and work of the appellant. According to him, the assessment made by the reporting officer was to prevail. He also argued that the remarks recorded by the countersigning officer were mala fide and no counselling was given to him. He also argued that his representation made against the adverse remarks was rejected without giving reasons and without proper application of mind, in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court reported in 1991 SCMR 2330. He also referred to earlier A.C.R. for the year 1992, which was expunged by the Tribunal by accepting his Appeal No. 86(K) of J993 and other reported cases in support of his submissions.
3. The respondent department has resisted the appeal and filed objections, wherein it has been stated that the countersigning officer, i.e. the Director of Laboratories, is the local Head of the Laboratories having the supervisory role, and according to him the performance of the appellant was not satisfactory and recorded his assessment after evaluating the work and quality of the appellant. It has been denied that there was no bias or mala fide against the appellant, but the adverse remarks were the real reflection of his work and conduct.
4. The A.C.R. impugned before us contain the following adverse remarks/Below average grading, recorded by the reporting officer as well as the countersigning officer. The reporting officer although graded the appellant in some of the columns as `Very Good', `Good' and `Average', but in the following columns, he has graded the appellant as `Below Average' also, and recorded the following adverse remarks:
PART III
ATTITUDES
Column 11
Perseverance and devotion to duty
Below Average
Column 12
Relations with Superiors
Below Average
PART IV
PROFICIENCY IN JOB
Column 6
Work (Output)
Below Average
PART V
(a)
Pen Picture:
Needless to say that it is impossible to take required quantum of scientific work from Mr. Haidery, who has not got his full to devote.
(b)
Counselling:
The officer was advised to stop doing litigation work in the office, to which officer replied that this is also official, because he has been dragged into litigation by the department not by any private party.
(c)
Assessment of Performance:
A relatively small amount of work has been done precisely and the results are dependable.
According to the reporting officer, the Overall Grading in Part VI is `Average'.
5. The Countersigning Officer, however, disagreeing with the assessment of the reporting officer graded the appellant as `Below Average' and in Part VI, the appellant was graded as `Below Average' and `Not yet fit for promotion'. In Part VII, the remarks of the Countersigning Officer were:
"The assessee officer has contributed very little towards his assignment (VC). The assessee was verbally counselled by the undersigned but without any improvement in spite of his promise to improve.
(2) The reporting officer's remarks are contradictory and cannot be reconciled.
(I) Part VA. The officer has potential to do scientific work.
He should be given some Admin work.
It is impossible to take required quantum of scientific work who has not his full to devote.
(II) Part II. 4 Attitude:‑‑Acceptance of responsibility‑‑Good `A' relatively small amount of work has been done part V.C.
(3) Even after counselling he practically devoted his full time for preparing papers for litigation, Part V.B. During my visits to Mycology Section he was never seen doing any scientific bench work. I saw him in his section either preparing legal papers or gossiping with friends in different sections. He has not met bare minimum standard to earn even an average A.C.R. when compared with officers working in the same section.
(4) The assessee officer would not be acceptable in higher grade on promotion."
When the report is read as a whole, it becomes clear that it was not only the Countersigning Officer who graded the appellant. `Below Average', but the reporting officer also graded the appellant as `Below Average' in Part III under column `Perseverance and devotion to duty and `relations with the superiors' and in Part IV under column 6 `Work' (Output). He has recorded certain adverse remarks in Part V in the column Pen‑picture, Counselling and Assessment of Performance. Therefore, as far as the assessment with regard to performance of work and devotion to duty is concerned, there is no inconsistency between the opinion and assessment of the reporting officer and the countersigning officer and no element of bias or mala fide, as claimed by the appellant, can be attributed towards the countersigning officer in the absence of any documentary positive evidence. The assessment and the i remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer are the real reflections on the work and conduct of the appellant which he made by closely watching the performance and work of the appellant. The contention of the appellant that since he was working under the direct control of the ‑reporting officer, his opinion was to prevail over the Countersigning Officer, the fact is that he also graded the appellant as `Below Average' as discussed above. Admittedly, the appellant was working under the Director of Laboratories, who was local Head of the Laboratories who had the supervisory and administrative role, and the appellant never objected to it, and under the rules, the opinion of the supervisory officer always prevail over the opinion of a subordinate officer and this view is fortified from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 SCMR 1427.(Province of Punjab v. Sardar Noor Ilahi Khan Leghari), wherein it has been held:
"8. The instructions reproduced above also show that it is the remark of the higher officer which prevails over that of a subordinate. The Service Tribunal has by giving precedence to the opinion by the I.G.(P) simply because a erectly deals with him, has violated the established principle rooted in the s stems of hierarchic bureaucracy. No other fault has been found in the opinion recorded by the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary was free to record his own impressions and opinions and unless it was manifestly untenable, the same could not be substituted by the opinion formed by the Service Tribunal from the limited material that was before it during the hearing of the appeal."
During the course of arguments, the appellant was directed to show us any research paper or work which he did as he was basically a scientist having a long service career, but he did not produce any such document. The cases relied upon by the appellant do not advance his case. We are of the view that the countersigning officer was right and justified in writing his assessment on 8 the work and performance of the appellant in the impugned A.C.R. and no case is made out for expunction of the remarks. There is no merit in appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑I fully agreed with the findings of my learned brother, but would like to add that even according to the assessment of the reporting officer on whose assessment the appellant has relied and based his claim for expunction of the adverse remarks, has also graded the appellant `Below Average, and pertinent reference is made to the remarks recorded by him in Part V(a) Pen‑picture " I again recommended that Mr. Hydri should be given some Admn assignment which may bound him to devote more time to genuine Government work", meaning thereby that no research work was being done by the appellant for which he was appointed and paid since decades. I would, therefore, also dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.
H.B.T./1074/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.