2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Laws Cited

Representation

• Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioner.
• S. Mahmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for Respondents.
• S.M. Iqbal for Respondent No.3.
• We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. The Section Officer present in Court has placed before us a sealed envelop and has claimed that on the basis of the general remarks contained in the "Low Down" of the petitioner, he was superseded. We have also perused the contents of Low Down of the petitioner contained in the sealed envelop. The column of general remarks contains vague allegations and are in conflict with the remarks contained in A.C.Rs. According to the Section Officer, the petitioner has not been given adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs. from 1984 till 2005. On the contrary he has been rewarded either "outstanding", "good" or "very good" remarks and was also recommended for promotion. The departmental rules do not provide the board to take note of any report of agency while considering promotion of a civil servant. When confronted with this provision of ESTACODE, which contains guideline for the Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Boards, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that the intelligence report or pendency of any enquiry under the NAB could not authorize the Selection Board to order supersession of an officer who otherwise was eligible and fit for promotion. In this respect we have perused Rule 5 of the Guideline for Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board. We have noticed that f under sub-clause (e) of rule 5, "quality and out-put of work and integrity" has been made dependent upon the marks calculated in accordance with the formula in the addendum which are made crucial factor in determining the comparative merits of an officer. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner under this formula has secured 82 marks. The eligibility threshold under this rule requires securing 75 marks. The counsel for the petitioner submits that those civil servants who secured less marks under eligibility threshold were promoted by the board. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pendency of an enquiry before NAB is hardly a ground of supersession. In support of his contention he has relied upon a letter of the NAB dated 17th April 2006 addressed to the Chairman. Federal Public Service Commission, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, in which it has been clearly notified that any investigation under the NAB would not disentitle a civil servant from being considered for promotion. Accordingly to the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 an enquiry is being conducted against the petitioner by the NAB authority. He thereafter submits that in view of this position the petitioner was rightly superseded. We do not find such reference of enquiry in the comments filed by the respondents that the petitioner was superseded owing to the pendency of NAB enquiry. Even otherwise, this act ex facie is contrary to the instructions contained in the letter of the Chairman NAB referred to hereinabove. Moreover the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Muhammad Yousuf Butt v. Central Board of Revenue and another 2007 PLC (C.S.) 718, wherein it has been held that pendency of an enquiry and/or investigation by the NAB is no ground to supersede a Civil servant. Additionally this Court in C.Ps. Nos. D-1006 of 2007 and 1018 of 2007 and also 2007 PLC (C.S.) 716, have observed that intelligence report cannot be made ground to supersede a civil servant unless he is otherwise disqualified for promotion under the provisions of the rules of ESTACODE as observed hereinabove.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree