ALAMGIR LIAQAT vs The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE S — 2025 PLC(CS) 5 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERV

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ALAMGIR LIAQAT VS The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE S. 5---Judicial officer ---Adverse remarks, recording of---Prior counselling by the Reporting / Countersigning Officer---Supervisory Officers, responsibilities of---Remarks were recorded in Performance Evaluation Report ("PER") of judicial officer for relevant period---Appellant (Judicial Officer) assailed order whereby respondent (Registrar High Court) declined his representation for expunction of remarks-in-question which stated that "He is advised to run his office with dignity and integrity"---Held, that from perusal of the contents of PER-in-question, it was not evident that any counseling was made to appellant by the Reporting Officer to improve his performance---There was nothing on record to justify his departure from the said general rule of making prior counselling before recording the adverse remarks---Pertinently, instructions contained in the PUNJAB ESTACODE Edition 2019, BOOK VII, captioned as "Instructions about Confidential Reports" and under the heading Ancillary Instructions, had not been followed in the present case---Matter of prior counselling before adverse remarks is mentioned vide D.O. No. 6/1/84-PDII, dated 12th February, 1984 from Establishment Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, to the Chief Secretary to Government of the Punjab, circulated vide Endorsement No. SOR-IV(S&GAD) 14-13/78(P) dated 16th May 1984 in Para 2(2) of ( subject) WRITING OF ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS ---Reporting or Countersigning Officers are obliged to offer counselling as to the performance of an officer apprising him of his weak points and advising him/her how to improve, and if the officer fails to improve despite counselling then adverse remarks may be recorded in the PER---It is up to the Supervisory Officers to see whether the counselling, advice or warning is to be given orally or in written form, or given publically in a general meeting of the officers or privately in a separate meeting with the concerned officer only---Primary purpose of the supervision is to guide the subordinate officers in improving their performance and efficiency, and that their role is more like a mentor rather than a punishing authority---Directions contained in the instructions, in said regard, on paying great attention to the manner and method of communicating advice or warning should be adhered to---Object of counselling is to improve the performance and efficiency of a subordinate officer, which can ultimately benefit the organization as it enables identifying and addressing performance issues before they become major problems---Record did not provide basis or direct evidence for the remarks-in-question---Remarks-in-question were recorded without prior counselling, thus, the same were unsustainable---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned order passed by the respondent (Registrar High Court ; consequently, impugned remarks in appellant's PER for the relevant period stood expunged---Appeal was allowed.

ALAMGIR LIAQAT vs The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE S — 2025 PLC(CS) 5 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC