ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. -This petition is directed against the judgment dated 25-9-1980, of the Services Tribunal, Islamabad (camp at Lahore) accepting the respondent's appeal and setting aside the order of his compulsory retirement.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly, that Mr. Amjad Ahmad Sheikh (respondent) who was an Officer of the Civil Services of Pakistan, recruited in 1953 was compulsorily retired from service w. e. f. 12-3-1972, under M. L. R -114. An appeal was subsequently provided against the said order under section 4 of the Services Tribunals Act, 1973. The respon--dent filed an appeal before the Services Tribunal, alleging, inter alia, that the concerned authority had no material before it on which the order of retirement could have been passed under M. L. R. 114 and that in fact, no order of his retirement had been passed by the competent Authority or any one authorised by it in that behalf. It appears, however, that during the arguments before the Tribunal, he himself submitted, that at the most, the said authority could have relied on adverse reports relating to 1957 and 1958, 1964 and 1965, some of which related to the general bad reputation enjoyed by him. The Tribunal, therefore, examined the respondent's entire record for 20 years and perused his Confidential Reports from 1954 onward, and found that with the exception of some adverse remarks for four abovementioned, years, his other reports were very favourable. Some of the reports paid him tribute and he was given a very favourable pen picture in every report in respect of his personality as well as conduct and performance. His report for the year ending December, 1963, was found to be outstanding. In that report he was assessed as 'Al' with respect to all the items mentioned in the form and recommendation for his accelerated promotion was also made. His pen picture in the said report is also except--tional and outstanding.
After assessing all his service record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that his conduct and performance was 'above average'. The Tribunal also made some observations about the adverse reports given to him with respect to his general reputation, and observed as follows in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment: "As regards the question of general reputation enjoyed by the officer in the sphere of his duty, it should not overweigh the recorded perfor--mance so as to justify such a stringent action. The general reputation at its best is an unauthorised opinion based in incomplete information conveyed by some one not from responsible source of information. Further considering the general level of intellectual honesty prevailing in the public wherefrom this general reputation takes its identity. It appears dangerous to take such administrative action against the civil servants on the basis of the so-called general reputation."
The learned Tribunal went on to observe in the next para that :- "Since the Establishment Division could not show us any orders of the competent authority even recorded by some other functionary on his behalf, we have no other alternative but to accept the plea of the appellant that there were no orders of the competent authority. This alone is sufficient to vacate the orders of retirement because the same were without jurisdiction and competence."
As a result of its findings the learned Tribunal vacated the order of compulsory retirement and observed that he should be deemed to have been in service throughout as if he was not retired.
The Federal Government, through the Secretary, Establishment Division, has filed the present petition for leave to Appeal against the abovementioned judgment of the Tribunal.
3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that its only grievance was against the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the judgment, which has been reproduced above in extenso. He submitted that if general reputation is not permitted to be taken into consideration in service matters on the assumption that they may be based on unauthorised and incorrect information conveyed by some irresponsible source, it would defeat the very intention behind law providing for general reputation of officers to be taken into consideration for purpose of taking action against public servants.
4. We agree with the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the infor--mation about the general reputation of corruption or of living beyond the known means of income and other such like matters, relating to public servants. Have, of necessity, to be based on information received from various quarters and cannot, in the nature of things, be based on such material as would be sufficient to prove the conduct imputed to the officer in a Court of law. We therefore, feel that the observations of the learned Tribunal in paragraph 7 of its judgment are not correct.
However, we are of the considered opinion that the conclusion, arrived at by the Service Tribunal, after scrutinising the entire service record of the respondent, that he was an officer "much above the average", is correct. The learned Deputy Attorney-General admitted that being a Court of appeal, the learned Tribunal could have arrived at such a finding of fact and reverse the finding of fact with respect to any particular ground on which the order of compulsory retirement of an officer is based. In fact it has not been urged by him before us that the view expressed by the Service Tribunal about respondent's competence on the basis of his service record was incorrect and should be set aside.
5. It may be mentioned that as observed by the learned Tribunal, the Establishment Division could not show any order of the Competent Authority or that of any other functionary on behalf of the said authority, compulsorily retiring the petitioner. It, therefore, rightly observed that the Appeal could have been accepted on that ground alone.