1998 PLP 2616 (SCMR)

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 24-11-1997 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal. Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos. 435(8) and 582(8) of 1997.

2. The sole grievance of then petitioner before the Tribunal related to the adverse remarks recorded in his Performance Evaluation Reports for certain years, communicated to him by two letters received by him in the year 1977. The Tribunal accepted the appeal by upgrading the remarks from 'Below average' to 'Average'. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:-- "Similarly the only adverse entry in column (c) treated to be 'Below Average' is contained in Serial No. 12 of Part III which indicates as 'Below Average' grading of the appellant in connection with his relations with his subordinates. This sole negative reporting has been repeated in all the three reports, initiated belatedly on 8-9-1996. However, this entry being the sole adverse entry against him repeatedly for three years has neither been commented upon in the pen-picture nor any details are given to justify the same. This being particularly the weak point in the performance of the appellant continuously for three years should have been reflected in the pen picture as required by the instructions. When confronted with this self-scontradictory and anomalous reports initiated after the lapse of almost three years, the representatives of the respondent-Department conceded in writing vide communication dated 19-11-1997 that such remarks are not adverse and if they were treated to be adverse ' then there is no hesitation to remove the same'. With this commitment the adverse entries contained in para. 12(c) of Part III of the three reports conveyed by the impugned order stands withdrawn/ expunged. Consequently the entry in the said column may be deemed to have been upgraded from 'Below Average' to 'Adverse' as per the gradings in most of the other columns as well as the overall Gradings in all the Parts."

3. It is contended by the petitioner, while arguing his case in person, that the A.C.Rs. recorded against the petitioner did not have any legal validity inasmuch as the reports in dispute were written belatedly, on the same date, without any written warnings to the petitioner on the weak points and without any supporting evidence. He further contended that he (petitioner) has been victimised and he was given 'Average' grading in almost all the columns so that he does not meet the minimum requirement of 70 % marks required of an officer for promotion to a post in BPS-20. He further submitted that the A.C.Rs. have acquired tremendous importance for the petitioner and simply washing away of the adverse entries would not do complete justice to him unless it also ensures that mala fides of the officers, writing the A.C.Rs. has not affected the character of reports.

4. The submissions made by the petitioner have no force. The controversy raised herein necessitates a factual enquiry which cannot be undertaken in these proceedings. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is based on cogent reasons and does not call for any interference. In any case, no question of law of public importance is involved in this petition.

5. Resultantly, leave is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./A-100/S Leave refused.