As per request of learned counsel for accused, accused are exempted from their personal appearance for today.
2. Vide this order I intend to decide the application U/s 249-A, Cr. P C, filed on behalf of accused persons.
3. The above named accused/petitioners sent up to face their trial in case registered against them vide FIR No. 194/18, dated: 27.04.2018, for the offence u/s 13/20/65 A.O with Police Station, Koral, Islamabad.
4. Learned counsel for accused/petitioners submitted that the subject weapons are licensed; that the licensed are verified, from the office concerned; that there is no probability of conviction of accused/petitioner, even entire prosecution summoned and recorded. It is prayed that accused/petitioners maybe acquitted.
IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD
Muhammad Abbas Shah Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate West-Islamabad.
Islamabad High Court through its Registrar, Islamabad.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE ISLAMABAD SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY
SERVICE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2016
This is an appeal u/s 5 of the Islamabad Judiciary Service tribunal Rules 2017 against the communicated letter Number P.F No(36)JO-PER/CONF/1390 Hon'able Islamabad High Court Islamabad Dated 22/12/2021 of the Assistant Registrar Islamabad High Court. Vide the said letter, while communicating the ACR for the year 2019, it was observed at Part-V that, “Quality of work and general repute makes him an average officer”. The appellant filed representation against the impugned letter/notification on 24-12-2021 and a period of 90 days has elapsed on 24-03-2022 but the same has not been decided, hence according to section 5 (a) of the rules the appellant is constrained to file instant appeal within thirty days after elapse of ninety days, reliance is placed on the judgment of case titled Asmatullah Khan Niazi Vs Registrar (2015 PLC (CS) 415 Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal), inter alia, on the grounds stated in this appeal- (Copy of Representation is annexed herewith as Annex______). The appeal is thus within time.
That the petitioner joined the district judiciary of the then NWFP in 2006 as Civil Judge where after on deputation, absorbed in the Islamabad Judiciary in 2012. Since then the appellant performed his duties with utmost honesty, full devotion and to the entire satisfaction of high ups.
That during the entire service career, the appellant enjoyed a reputation of being honest, committed, dutiful, cooperative, upright and sober in the performance of judicial services. An unblemished service record is thus his sole earnings.
That the quality and quantity of appellant’s judicial work was recognised by his high ups through Performance Evaluation Reports wherein I was either graded as good or very good worker. Needles to mention that in the entire service career not even a single complaint is filed against me.
That after rendering 16 years of meritorious services, I was legitimately expecting to be promoted as Senior Civil Judge. But to my utter shock and astonishment, I was communicated the PER for the year 2019.
That prior to this letter, the appellant served under the supervision of number of Hon’ble District & Session Judges, who were commonly known for their integrity, honesty and also for their strictness, having zero tolerance for any sort of dishonesty or inefficiency. The appellant wishes to mention their names as under as it is relevant to justify his stance:-
Name of District & Sessions Judges KPK judiciary
Musadiq Hussain Gillani
Safdar khan sikandri
Muhammad Ibrahim khan
Mohd Rafique Hussain shah
Azhar ul Habib
Mohd yaqoob khattak
sharif ahmad khan
Khwaja wajih ud din
Madam Irshad qaiser
Name of District & Sessions Judges Islamabad judiciary
Raja Jawad Abbas Hassan
Nazir ahmad gajana
Kamran Basharat Mufti
Muhammad Tanvir Mir
choudhry Mumtaz Hussain
Madam Rakhshanda shaheen
Muhammad Atta Rabani
That all the above Hon’ble District and Sessions Judges have expressed full confidence in the appellant’s work with utmost honesty. However, the Learned Countersigning Officer had recorded the impugned remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant, which has been communicated vide impugned letter dated 22-12-2021.
That being aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 22-12-2021 the appellant filed a representation dated 24-12-2021 before respondent No.1, but the same has not so far been responded.
That throughout his service the appellant has always been granted good & very good ACRs by the worthy Reporting Officers which were also confirmed and agreed upon by the Honorable Countersigning Officer.
That through above referred letter (Annex_____) Part IV and V of the Performance Evaluation Report for the period 05-08-2019 to 07-11-2019 has been communicated.
That in Part IV the Worthy Reporting Officer assessed the appellant “Fit for Promotion” however Honorable Countersigning officer disagreed with Worthy Reporting Officer and assessed the appellant “Not yet fit for Promotion” without assigning plausible reason.
That in Part V the Honorable Countersigning Officer gave reason of disagreement with the worthy Reporting officer as “Quality of work and general repute makes him an average judicial officer”. Due to this reason the evaluation of Worthy Repotting officer was declared to be exaggerated.
That on the basis of such assessment by the Honorable Countersigning officer, the appellant was assessed as ‘Not Yet Fit for Promotion.
That the Hon’ble Authority professionally holds a parental status for all the judicial officers of District Judiciary and this fact is encouraging fact for the appellant to make submissions with respect to adverse remarks with high expectation that his submissions would be considered with kindness and benevolence.
That the requirements of recording PER are contained in the hand book “ A guide to Performance Evaluation” published by Pakistan Public Administration Research Centre Management services wing Establishment Division Islamabad, and adopted by Honorable Islamabad High Court, Islamabad vide office order No F(9)Conf./IHC/1308 dated 23-11-2021. The Section 3, Part II, Paragraph 3.3 (iii) (b) whereof mandates that when any adverse remark is made in the evaluation report, a copy of the whole report should be furnished to the officer reported upon at earliest. Whereas, whole evaluation report has not been sent to the undersigned, thus, the communication of adverse remarks is not in lines with the guidelines supra. The relevant excerpt is reproduced here for reference :
(b) When any adverse remark is made in the evaluation report of any officer, a copy of the whole report should be furnished to him at the earliest opportunity, and in any case within one month from the date the report is countersigned, with a D.O. letter, a copy of which should be signed and returned by him in acknowledgement of the report. A serious view should be taken of any failure on the part of the officials concerned to furnish a copy of the report containing adverse remarks to the officer reported upon within the stipulated period. Nevertheless, the adverse remarks should be communicated to the officer concerned