Annual Confidential Report

2017 PLC(CS)N 64 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

Annual Confidential Report

Evaluation of performance of a subordinate by a Reporting Officer or Countersigning Officer was a matter of subjective assessment and not an objective evaluation.

2015 PLC(CS) 415 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 5Annual Confidential ReportAdverse remarksPro forma promotionPerformance being below averageAppealLimitationBack benefits

Pro forma promotion of the appellant was declined by the Authority on the ground that he earned adverse remarks in his ACRs

Validity

Appellant filed representation for grant of pro forma promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 7-9-2006 which was declined by the Authority on 10-6-2013

Decision of the Authority was conveyed to the appellant on 11-6-2013 and he filed Service Appeal within 30 days from the date of decision of his representation

Civil servant had choice either to file appeal immediately on the expiry of 90 days from the date of filing of departmental appeal or he could have waited for the decision of same and file Service Appeal within 30 days thereof

Appellant waited for decision of his representation for seven years and when his representation was declined he filed the present appeal within 30 days

Present appeal was within time

Appellant earned adverse remarks in his three ACRs but same were treated as advisory in nature in his representation

Representation of the appellant was rejected on the ground that his performance was found "below average"

Nothing remained adverse against the appellant barring his promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge

Appellant could not be deprived of his right of promotion from the date when he became eligible for the same

Rejection of representation for pro forma promotion was not justified

Authority was directed to grant pro forma promotion to the appellant as Additional District and Sessions Judge from the date when his immediate junior was promoted with all the consequential back benefits

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

2015 PLC(CS) 275 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

R. 3(c)(iii)Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991), S.5Judicial OfficerAnnual Confidential ReportAdverse remarksDismissal from serviceRegular inquiry, dispensing withScopePersistent reputation of being corruptAppellant, a Civil Judge, was dismissed from service on the basis of adverse remarks recorded in the ACRsValidity

Adverse remarks recorded in three ACRs were challenged by the appellant through representations which were dismissed by the Authority

Appeals against the adverse marks were dismissed by Service Tribunal

Service Tribunal could not again examine the legality of the adverse remarks recorded in the said three ACRs as same had attained finality

Allegations levelled against the appellant were supported by documents

No regular inquiry was required before initiating penal action against the appellant

Authority had rightly dispensed with conducting of regular inquiry in the matter of appellant's dismissal from service

Appellant had earned three consecutive adverse ACRs touching his integrity

Appellant was found guilty of having persistent reputation of being corrupt and was liable for imposition of major penalty

Appellant was a judicial officer and his earning three consecutive adverse ACRs was a valid ground to hold him guilty of having reputation of being corrupt

Such conduct of appellant was unbecoming of a judicial officer

Authority had rightly imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant

Impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity or jurisdictional defect

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.