Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Ch. Sajjad Ahmed was not promoted to BS-21 in the meetings of the CSB held on 09.12.2009 and 31.12.2010. On his request he was informed of his supersession vide letter dated 07.04.2011. His departmental appeal dated 28.04.2011 was not responded.
2. The appellant has maintained that he had never earned any adverse report regarding his integrity and that his service record was unblemished but despite that he was superseded.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the promotions on selection posts are made under the Revised Promotion Policy, 2007 on the recommendations of CSB which comprises of nine Federal Secretaries, four Chief Secretaries of the Provinces, two MNAs, four Inspector Generals of Police of the Provinces and two senior most police officers who are co-opted when the promotion of PSP Officers is considered. It is further maintained that the appellant was superseded since he had not achieved the requisite threshold and his reputation, known to the Members of the CSB, was of his being corrupt.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The CSB definitely comprises of senior most officers of the Federal Government and is headed normally by a retired judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or an authority of equal rank. (In this case the Board was headed by Mr. Justice (R) Bagwandas, a retired judge of the apex Court). While considering the promotion of the officers the CSB looks into the service record of each officer. We find from such record that the PERs and TERs of the appellant were without any adverse entry. In the PER for the year 2009 the Counter Authority had given excellent report to him. It is an established rule that the report of Countersigning Officer has to prevail over the report of the Reporting Officer. It is not that the Reporting Officer had given any adverse report to the appellant but the Countersigning Officer had given him a par excellent report. For this report the appellant was manifestly not given any benefit. In fact there is no fixed formula for calculation / determination of marks achieved by each civil servant. We are told that for average reports, for good reports and for excellent reports different criteria for calculation of marks is fixed. Be that as it may, the appellant had earned good reports. It appears to us that meaningful consideration had not been given to his PERs/TERs, especially to the relevant PER for B the year 2009 in which the Countersigning Officer had given an excellent report to him.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Members of the CSB had knowledge that the appellant was carrying the reputation of being corrupt. According to her the report of the CSB in this regard had to be believed since it comprised of very senior officers including officers from the Police Service and even two Members of the Parliament. There is no cavil with the proposition that the CSB is a very high-powered body. But it is also a cardinal principle of justice, universally recognized, that no person can be condemned unheard. If the Members of the CSB had this impression against the appellant that he was corrupt, he should have been confronted with that impression or should have been issued a show-cause notice in that regard.
When the service record of the appellant was unblemished, he had a right to present his defence against this impression of the Members of the CSB that he was carrying the reputation of corruption. We are of the considered view that the charge of corruption, not contained in the PERs/TERs, could not be taken into consideration by the CSB without any notice to the appellant. We understand that there is .no provision of personal hearing before the CSB nor there is any provision for any show-cause notice to the civil servant but we are compelled to give this finding since it is the first, ease in which we have noticed that in the objections the respondents have taken a plea with regard to the integrity of the appellant. Normally such an objection is not taken unless the record speaks for it. At least no mention is made about the observations/ impressions of the CSB with regard to the integrity of the civil servant if his service record does not give any indication of his being corrupt. The present case appears to be an exceptional. Herein the Members of the CSB have imported their personal knowledge with regard to the integrity of the appellant. In fact he has been condemned without getting an opportunity of defending himself. The FST is the only forum in which he can make his grievances with a prayer for their redressal.
7. The appellant had not challenged his supersession dated 09.12.2009. Such supersession has thus attained finality. Meanwhile the CSB had held another meeting on 30.04.2011 in which also the appellant was superseded. Surprisingly for this supersession the appellant has not made any prayer. In fact he had submitted his departmental appeal on 28.04.2011 whereas the recent meeting of the CSB was held on 30.04.2011. We shall, therefore, restrict ourselves to the meeting of the CSB dated 31.12.2010. In this meeting the Members of the CSB had expressed their personal views about the integrity of the appellant without giving him any chance to rebut the same.
8. We accordingly hold that the supersession of the appellant made by the CSB in its meeting dated 31.12.2010 was not legal. It is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the appellant for promotion from the date other officers were promoted in consequence of that meeting. We have already made clear that the appellant shall not be considered for promotion made as a result of meeting hold on 09.12.2009. As regards meeting of the CSB held on 30.04.2011, it is also not relevant for the present appeal. It is the only supersession of the appellant made in the meeting of the CSB dated 31.12.2010 which has been set aside. The appellant shall be reconsidered. His consideration shall be meaningful and purposeful. The personal views of the Members shall be relevant only if the appellant is confronted with the same.