' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.-- The petitioner sought relief against adverse remarks in the performance evaluation report for the period from 1-7-2005 to 30-6-2006, thereby directed to be without lawful authority, corum-non-judice, mala fide, harsh and capricious, as such, same be expunged and further direction be issued to respondent for pro forma promotion.
2. As per contention raised in the petition, the petitioner joined the Gas Development Company 20 years back, performed duties in various capacities on different places and was promoted time to time keeping in view his hard-working and now performing as Store Officer. The petitioner was posted at Rig 306 Kot Addu Base, where Chief Store Officer, Head Office Mr. Amin Saeed through telephonic conversation directed him to send 20-25 crates of Mangoes at his residence in .
Islamabad, which the petitioner could not fulfil on account of financial constrained. Subsequently, petitioner relieved from Kot Addu for Rig N-1, met with Mr. Amin Saeed in Head Office, who shouted upon him and abused him using dirty words by blaming that he did not say "Salam" to him, therefore, on becoming personal, he being reporting officer for the said period communicated adverse remarks despite the fact that previous Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner were either good or very good. Adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 16-10-2006, due to personal grudge and vendetta thereby spoiled the career of the petitioner by the said Reporting Officer Mr. Amin Saeed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide letter dated 10-7-2007. It is further contended that sudden adverse remarks without any prior warning or advice were not supported by Performance Evaluation Rules framed under OGDCL Service Regulations, 1994, hence finding injustice even on appeal level, he preferred the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has given details about induction of the petitioner in OGDD, now (OGDCL) in 1986 as Assistant Store Officer E-I and keeping in view his best performance, he was directly promoted to EG-III instead of EG-II as the services rendered by him are aboveboard. It is argued that in the year 2006, when he was posted at Kot Addu, due to his misfortune on account of created as a result of not fulfilling the ill demands of Mr. Amin Saeed, who issued adverse remarks being hurdle in the way of further promotion of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner confronted seniority list at page 30, by which, petitioner is ranked senior and because of that hurdle in his way, the entire junior to the petitioner have been promoted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that Annual Confidential Report in its present form are not according to the prescribed method, which must have been communicated not later than 30 days from the receipt of the report in the personnel department with a copy to the Head of Department, but while issuance of adverse report, the method was not observed and late communicate by itself loosing the validity of the adverse report.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred the instructions issued by the company for preparing, communicating and method of Annual Confidential Report of the officers, whereby at Para No,12 it becomes clear that adverse remarks in the confidential report shall be communicated at the earliest opportunity but same is lacking. It is also argued that earlier method for issuance of ACR was different but on introduction of these instructions at Para No,16 now it becomes totally changed, which requires the Reporting Officer to counsel an employee being reported upon about his weak points and adverse remarks should only be recorded when fails to improve. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that against Management such type of cry raised by the employees about atrocities of the Management, thereby creating hurdle in their promotion violating the policy ignoring the seniority as apparent from the representation, jointly submitted by many employees. Therefore, through letter dated 1-6-2004, learned counsel drawn my attention that for counseling, the department communicated said letter containing "only verbal counseling held at number of occasion." Therefore, learned counsel emphasized that counseling in the manner as stated is not according to the method or prescribed system but it is an attempt to shift burden, which otherwise on the face of it appears to be non existing as there is a way to call the concerned officer for counseling through letter, which is lacking. Hence, adverse reports issued to the petitioner are required to be expunged.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following case-law:---
(1) 1992 PLC (C.S.) 732, (2) 1988 PLC (C.S.) 396, (3) PLD 1992 SC 144 (sic), (4) 1992 PLC (C.S.) 18, (5)
PLD 1986 SC 684, (6) PLD 1995 SC 556, (7) NLR 1996 (TD) Service 100 (sic), (8) 2010 PLC (C.S.) 946 and (9) 2010 PLC (C.S.) 876.
7. That the authorities referred above are only covering legal and technical aspects mainly the late communication of ACRs and violation of statutory rules. In my humble view are not covering fully the pleas raised in support of claim of the petitioner.
8. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents argued that earlier no executive grades were available in 1986, which were subsequently introduced in 2001 when petitioner was on change of nomenclature was EG-I. On introducing the policy of executive grade when petitioner was promoted step ahead, there was a policy introduced the Department to promote technical staffs directly in EG-III, who were serving as EG-I, whereas non-technical staffs were promoted as E.g.-I to EG-II. As a result, all the technical staffs were promoted as such, 20 persons among non-technical staff preferred writ petition, which was dismissed and on further moving to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a favorable decision was passed, whereby only those 20 persons were promoted as a case of judgment in persona. On such promotion in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, havoc of making applications, appeals, and representations started, which created problem for the Management, hence all those non-technical staff were promoted. However, after 2005 it was decided by the Management not to award out of turn promotion to any of the employee. With this background, learned counsel for the respondent emphasized that while referring annex-B appended with the petition, the petition preferred to the department by the petitioner discussing the main reason of demanding 20-25 Mango crates, upon his refusal, he shouted upon him badly, wherein in the instant petition, he exaggerated further of not saying "Salam" in the Head Office proving the conduct of the petition as not trustworthy and he is in habit of changing his version from time to time. He also drawn my attention towards an appeal submitted by the petitioner to the Chairman in the month of July, 2007, whereby he himself claimed his ACRs from 1998 to 2002 either good or very good as well as in Para "b" of the appeal, he himself indicated issuance of adverse report for the year 2003, therefore, he had no such record unblemished as argued.
Moreover, at Para-"c" of the said appeal he has not indicated that the officer verbally counseled with him only to fulfill his personal demands and fast to meet obligatory requirements awarded poor grading, which contradicting his said plea raised in the earlier appeal and the writ petition.
While referring another appeal of the petitioner at Page 41, addressed to the Chairman OGDCL requesting him therein for reconsideration of adverse reports for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and same may be re-graded as very good, which positively indicates that petitioner having no good record aboveboard as contended in the petition or argued. He further argued that his performance since 1986 to 1994 were continuously remained simple average out of which were bearing adverse remarks, he could hardly be qualified for next promotion after 12 years in July 1998, he got EG-III, as argued above. It is also pointed out that Mr. Amin Saeed was Manager Material and only promote to endorse the Annual Confidential Report as intermediate officer, who merely agreed with the Reporting Officer rated him average and the counter-signing officer has further down-graded him the rating of below average. But the petitioner is blaming Mr. Amin Saeed having no role either to issue average remarks or further downgraded by the countersigning officer. Further he argued that according to rules, petitioner is not allowed to make personal remarks against any officer. He referred Rule 7(1). It is argued that counseling is to be offered to the officer against whom adverse remarks are going to be communicated once for the first time, the officer is going to issue adverse remarks but not at every occasion and from the record, it appears that since 1986, the petitioner never earned such remarks favorable either good or very good. Hence, not only the counseling has indicted at page 23 was held orally on number of occasion as indicated in the said letter. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred report of Operation Manager, whereby he reported against the petitioner while posted at Rig N-1 that he is not taking keen interest in the store affairs which is a great concern for him and work progress is suffering in running operations smoothly.
Likewise another report of Iftikhar Hussain Shah, Assistant Chief Material Officer, reporting similar allegation of not taking any interest in the assignment. Report against the petitioner coupled with noncooperation, particularly same item was untraced but on re-check, it was available at Rig N-1.
Another complaint of like nature communicated by Chief Material Officer Malik Abdul Waheed showing that Auditor reported against the petitioner respecting non cooperation of the petitioner with them. As apparent from the audit report, it is totally an independent department made complaint against the conduct of the petitioner.
9. With the assistance of both the counsel, not only the record as scrutinized fully available with the petition as well as in the parawise comments but arguments of both the sides has also been heard at length.
10. From the arguments advanced, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focus that case of the atrocities of the high-ups, the petitioner was ignored only for the reason of adverse remarks existing against the petitioner for a period from 1-7-2005 to 30-6-2006, for which adverse remarks were issued to the petitioner, it become hurdle in his way for his further promotion. It is also emphasized that the petitioner performed his duties with all his abilities and entire satisfaction of the superior but only on account of this period, when Mr. Amin Saeed, the then Chief Store Officer, Head Office, who telephonically demanded 20-25 crates of the mangoes at his residence in Islamabad, which the petitioner could not meet on account of financial constrained, the petitioner was victimized and still he is suffering by not getting promotion due to personal grudge and vendetta of Mr. Amin Saeed as an addition to that the petitioner did not say "Salam" to him. It is also argued that the late communication of adverse report as well as counseling not afforded is sufficient to declare the Annual Confidential Report in question, issued against the petitioner as without lawful authority, mala fide, harsh, and corum-nonjudice.
11 As against the arguments advanced, the learned counsel for the respondents has clarified the clouds from the record that at various occasion, counselling was afforded and since beginning the petitioner earns adverse report, which he has concealed but from the record he has successfully pointed out that the petitioner himself in his own appeals preferred to the Chairman and authorities indicating issuance of adverse report before the subject period and after that also. Also the available record shows that only the Reporting Officers have reported adversely but other quarters having slight link with the petitioner during his duty, they too reported against him about is slackness and lethargy not taking interest as well as non-cooperation. Therefore, the only reason of non-communication of adverse remarks within 30 days cannot be taken as a great consideration for declaring Annual Confidential Reports as a whole fit to be expunged.
12. The petitioner through the instant petition not able to substantiate his claim in view of the material available on record. Therefore, petition as prayed carrier. No weight, hence, same is dismissed with no order as to costs.