1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

In this connection, a reference in necessary to the judgment of the Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 46(K)/1975 (Abdul Aleem v. Plant Protection Adviser/Director). In this judgment, our learned colleagues have decided that since the periodical assessment on the performance of a civil servant's work does not constitute a service condition; the matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The only appeal provided it to the next senior Officer who has also occasion to see the work of the civil servant during the period under report. Our learned colleagues have also observed that when both the Officers, the initiating and countersigning, agree as to the efficiency of a person, there remains no other avenue for rectification. The Tribunal not being in a position to assess his work cannot substitute its own appraisal. We hold slightly different view from our learned colleagues as contained in the judgment quoted above. Although the periodical assessment of work of a civil servant does not constitute service condition, but his confirmation on a post and: promotion and advancement which constitute, service conditions are directly affected by these reports. Consequently, the A. C. Rs. become relevant to the terms and conditions of service. Although it is not the intention of the provisions of the Civil Servants Act to interfere in the administrative discretion of the reporting authority, there is another important consideration which has to be taken into account. It has to be seen whether the report initiated and countersigned on the work of a civil servant has been prepared according to the rules prescribed on this behalf as amended from time to time, and the applicable instructions and directives. If there is some violation of these orders and rules, the matter comes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to go into facts and, merits of the 6 se concerning the A.C.Rs. The important rules and instructions for maintenance of A. C. Rs. are reproduced below; (1) No report shall be written by an Officer under whom a civil servant has not worked for three months or more. (2) No adverse assessment shall be taken into consideration for confirma tion, promotion and advancement, permitting to cross the efficiency bar or the increments or for the purpose of awarding a punishment which has not been communicated to the civil servant and his report against such an assessment has not been finally decided. (3) No report already. expunged under the orders of the competent authority shall be considered for promotion, confirmation or punitive action. (4) A report which has not been countersigned by the competent authority has also not to be considered for promotion, confirmation or punitive action. (5) When an adverse remark has been made in the report of the official, a copy of whole of the report should be furnished to him in any case within one month from the date the report is countersigned. After going through the facts of the case, we do not find any violation of the above instructions. The periodical assessment made in this case was properly initiated and correctly countersigned by the competent authority. It was communicated within one month of the countersigning by the concerned Officer. The assessment in question has not been considered for promotion, confirmation or any punitive action before it was communicated. In these circumstances, the appellant has no case even regarding the violation of instructions and rules on the maintenance of A. C. Rs. As regards the maintenance of ephemeral rolls, the relevant instructions of the Pak. P. W. D. dated the 20th August, 1948, are as under: "In respect of the staff under them and that in all cases in which, while writing up confidential reports, any punitive action, e. g. withholding of annual increments, is recommended, specific instances of failure in work or unsatisfactory conduct, duly substantiated, as entered on the ephemeral roll will have to be furnished in future." These instructions require entry in the ephemeral rolls where withholding of annual increments, etc. or some other punitive action is under consideration. In the appeal under disposal, no punitive action is directly intended in the annual report of performance, but only an observation has been made regarding the conduit of the appellant to the effect that he goes frequently on leave which causes the work to suffer. On this account, therefore, the appeal does not succeed. Another important consideration for disposal of this appeal is the allegation of mala fides made by the appellant against the Reporting Officer. Since this allegation has not been made specific and could not be proved, we do not take cognizance of the same. In the absence of any clear proof, the assessment has to be taken as free of malice, We take full cognisance of the fact that assessment for the period ending 31st December,1978, was of special importance for the promotion of the appellant, but unless it is proved beyond doubt that this adverse report has been made to deprive him of the chance of promotion, we cannot take into consideration the allegation made by the appellant. Net result is that the appeal does not sustain, and is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.