2005 PLP 1035 (SCMR)

Azam Riaz Farooqi v. Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore 1989 SCMR 320 and Muhammad Naseem, v. Secretary, Government of Punjab 1989 SCMR 1149 rel. Syed Aqa Asif Jaffery, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Professor Zulfiqar Ahmad, Government College, Sahiwal for Respondent. Date of hearing : 17th April, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑

On failure to get adverse remarks expunged from department the petitioner approached Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by way of appeal which has been rejected vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.

2. Syed Aqa Asif Jaffery, learned ASC appeared on behalf of petitioner and vehemently contended that the adverse remarks being conjectural, inconsistent and mala fide should have been expunged as no counseling whatsoever was rendered to the petitioner during his entire service and as such the adverse remarks would have no legal importance. It is contended that adverse remarks were recorded due to bias and cannot be equated to that of equitable assessment and thus, liable to be expunged. It is pointed out that the petitioner has unblemished record of service which is indicative of the fact that equitable assessment of the petitioner could not be made in accordance with his service record which resulted in grave prejudice against the petitioner.

3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner and perused the judgment impugned. A careful perusal of the entire record would indicate the prime contention of learned ASC that no counseling whatsoever was made seems to be fallacious as it was done by the Principal by means of letters, dated 20‑2‑1996 and 30‑9‑1996, besides the verbal advice given on various occasions. No malice‑or bias against the reporting officer could be proved. Had the reporting officer been biased, the petitioner would have not been able to get `good" reports regarding his intelligence, confidence, knowledge of Islam and knowledge towards Ideology of Islam. It is worth‑mentioning that the power of expression, knowledge of work and analytical ability of the petitioner have been appreciated which could not have been done by a biased reporting officer. The question of subjective assessment in all relevant spheres squarely falls within the supervisory domain of reporting officer which cannot be interfered with unless some convincing and cogent reasoning is available which is lacking in this case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in cases titled Azam Riaz Farooqi v. Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore 1989 SCMR 320 and Muhammad Naseem v. Secretary, Government of Punjab 1989 SCMR 1149. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter persuading us to grant leave.

4. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice and being well‑based does not call for any interference. The petitions being merit less are dismissed and leave refused. M.H./Z‑14/S Petition dismissed.