Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1995 P L C (C

1995 P L C (C.S.) 960

[Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal]

Present: Justices Khalid Paul Khawaja, Chairman and Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Member

Sh. ABDUL RASHID, MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, OKARA

versus

THE REPORTING OFFICER and 2 others

Service Appeal No. 29 of 1991, heard on 12th April, 1995.

Civil service‑--

‑‑‑‑ Adverse remarks‑‑‑Expunction‑‑‑‑Adverse remarks given in A.C.R. of civil servant by Reporting Officer wherein integrity of civil servant was reported as "corrupt" had been challenged by civil servant‑‑‑No written complaint with regard to corruption was lodged against civil servant and remarks with regard to corruption reported in A.C.R. were not endorsed by Countersigning Officer who was Judge of the High Court‑‑‑Describing a person as corrupt, was a very serious allegation which could spoil his whole career as a civil servant, while examining A.C.Rs. where a person was dubbed as corrupt, it should be seen as to whether any cogent material or justification was available for recording such remark in his A.C.R.‑‑‑Adverse remark in A.C.R. of civil servant appeared to be without any factual and lawful basis‑‑‑Opinion based upon reports of rat- like oral complaints allegedly made by complainants who did not have courage either to face person against whom they were complaining could not be allowed to be made as basis for describing a person as corrupt‑‑‑Disputed A.C.Rs. of civil servant having not been recorded in accordance with law, could not be sustained and were liable to be expunged.

Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Services General Administration and Information Department and another v. Abdul‑ Matloob Khan, Extra‑Assn. Commissioner /Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala 1990 SCMR 1431; Sirajuddin Qureshi v. Administrative committee of Sindh High Court 1985 PLC (C.S.),704 and F.Q. Mad Ullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary, Government of N: W.F.P. and 5 others 1994 SCMR 722

Muhammad Ghani for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Azam Rasool for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 12th Apri1,1995.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE CH. MUSHTAQ AHMED KHAN (MEMBER): ‑‑Sh. Abdul Rasheed while posted as Magistrate Section 30‑Judl, at Rawalpindi was given the following adverse remarks in his A.C.R. by respondent No.l who was his Reporting Officer.

Part V

Penpicture:‑ There are so many complaints of corruption against him.

Counselling:‑ I had advised him to improve his integrity, but be did not improve.

Part VI

Overall Grading. Meets bare minimum standards.

(Below average)

Fitness for promotion. Not yet fit for promotion.

Integrity. Corrupt.

His Lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar who was the honourable Countersigning Officer endorsed the other remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer but did not endorse the remarks contained in the columns of over all grading, fitness for the promotion and integrity. The appellant filed a representation against the impugned remarks which was dismissed vide order communicated to him by the respondent No.2, on 21‑7‑1988.

2. Mr. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellant, whereas Malik Muhammad Azam Rasool, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the adverse remarks in question are without any basis and justification that the same have not been endorsed by the Countersigning Officer and that there was absolutely no complaint of corruption against the appellant and in case the respondents even now, points out a single complaint against the appellant, he will withdraw the appeal, therefore the same are illegal and are liable to be expunged. In support of his contentions learned counsel has. placed reliance on the following cases.

(i) Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Services General Administration and Information Department and another v. Abdul Matloob Khan, Extra‑Asstt. Commissioner/Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala(1990 SCMR 1431);

(ii) Sirajuddin Qureshi v. Administrative Committee of Sindh High Court (1985 PLC (C.S.) 704)

3. As against the above arguments Malik Muhammad Azam Rasool, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, conceding that there is no written complaint against the appellant, has contended that the complaint could also be oral, that in absence of allegations of mala fides, the appellant cannot claim any benefit merely for the reasons that the Countersigning Officer has not endorsed the questioned A.C.Rs. and that this Tribunal cannot ask for documents in support of the opinion Formed by the Reporting Officer who is the best Judge to make a report after watching and taking stock of overall performance of the appellant. Reliance is‑placed on the following cases:

F.Q. Mad Ullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Sectary, Govt. of N.W.F.P. and 5 others (1994 SCMR 722) and

Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.823/90.

4. We have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, have perused the record, and have gone through the case‑law cited at the Bar. It is admitted position that no complaint of corruption, in writing had been received against the appellant. Argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that may be there was oral complaint of corruption against him is just conjectural and assumptive no such indication is reflected in the A.C.R. recorded by the Reporting Officer.

Although there is no cavil with the proposition that if an adverse ACR is not endorsed by the Countersigning Officer it does not lose its weight but the fact remains that an honourable Judge of this Court having endorsed the other entries and having omitted to endorse the questioned entries, does make the same doubtful and questionable as such. Describing a person corrupt is a very serious allegation which can spoil his whole career as a civil servant. Therefore while examining A.C.Rs. where a person is dubbed as corrupt we have to see as to whether there was any cogent material or justification for recording of the A.C.R. in question as held in case of Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Services General Administration and Information Department and another (supra) in which judgment at page 1432 it has been held as under:‑‑

3. The performance of a Magistrate is not so much a matter of reputation as of expert assessment by a superior from record and performance relatable to individual cases and situations. By resorting to the reputation as the spruce and not to the actual performance the Commissioner has justified his remarks by reference to a somewhat extraneous consideration. It is true that ordinarily, in recording remarks or opinions, full reasons need not be given but the conclusions have to be based on facts and when in contest, as in this case the concerned officer should have plausible explanation to justify his conclusions. In this case that was not adequately done and the Tribunal was justified in interfering with it."

5. In the case in hand the questioned A.C.R. appears to be without any factual and lawful basis, and opinion based upon the sports o rat‑like complaints, who do not have the courage either to face the person against whom they are complaining and even to be on record, who are sinners even as per injunctions of Islam cannot be allowed to be made as a basis for describing a person as corrupt, hence we are of the view that the questioned ACRs have not been recorded in accordance with law and are not sustainable as such.

6. Resultantly the appeal is accepted and the questioned ACRs are expunged.

H.B.T./A‑825 /L Appeal accepted.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant