1995 PLP 1036 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 31‑7‑1994 passed in Appeal No. 253(R) of 1994). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Adverse entry in Annual Confidential Report‑‑‑Service Tribunal expunged such remarks on appeal of civil servant ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Material produced showed that entries in Annual Confidential Reports had ` been subsequently changed‑‑‑Service Tribunal had given valid reasons for reaching conclusion that Annual Confidential Report once written could not be changed by the same Officer and if there was some change in his opinion that should be expressed in subsequent report‑‑‑Service Tribunal's findings were quite in accord with the instructions issued by Government regarding writing of Annual Confidential Reports‑‑‑Service Tribunal had also noted that although s report in question, was written for the year 1991, yet it was communicated to civil servant after about three years which was contrary to the instructions with regard to communication of adverse remarks‑‑‑Questions decided by Tribunal 'n in judgment in question, were purely questions of fact and no question of law ''1 of public importance had arisen in circumstances of case‑‑‑Order of Service Tribunal being just and equitable warranted no interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Raja M. Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1995. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 31‑7‑1994 whereby learned Tribunal accepted service appeal filed by the respondent and expunged the adverse remarks contained in the A.C.R. of the respondent for the year 1991 alongwith alteration and tempering made therein. The learned counsel for the Federation while seeking leave to appeal contended that the alteration in the A.C.R. was made at the time of writing of the A.C.R. and not subsequently and as such no illegality was committed. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there was no material before the learned Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the alteration of remarks in the A.C.R. of the respondent was mala fidely done and as such the order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. We have gone through the order of the Service Tribunal and found that the learned Tribunal on basis of the material produced before it reached the conclusion that the A.C.R. of the respondent was changed subsequent to its writing by the concerned officer. This fact was not disputed before the Tribunal by the petitioners but it was contended that this alteration in the A.C.R. of the respondent was necessary as the officer concerned found it expedient to change the entries which he had made earlier in the A.C.R. of the respondent. The learned Tribunal has given very valid reasons for reaching the conclusion that the A.C.R. once written could not be changed by the same officer and if there was any change in his opinion that should be expressed in the subsequent A.C.R. of the concerned officer/official. The observations made by the learned Tribunal are quite in accord with the instructions issued by the Government regarding writing of the A.C.R. of Government servants. The learned Tribunal also noted in the impugned judgment that although A.C.R. was written for the year 1991 but it was communicated to the respondent after about three years which was contrary to the instructions with regard to communication of adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs. of Government servants. The questions decided by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment are purely questions of facts and no question of law of public importance arises in the circumstances of the case. The order of the Tribunal otherwise appears to be a just and equitable order and no interference is called for with this order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. A.A./F‑345/5 Petition dismissed.