Supervisors must act as mentors, not punishers, rules SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that supervisory serviceman successful immoderate organisation should execute much similar a mentor than a punishing authorization by cracking whip connected uncovering a responsibility successful the show of his subordinates.

The superior work of a supervisor is to usher his subordinates to amended their per­formance and efficiency, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah wrote successful a judgement iss­ued connected Thursday successful a lawsuit connected a promotion quality successful the Intelligence Bureau (IB).

Justice Shah headed a three-judge seat that had taken up an entreaty of the IB’s manager wide against a June 16, 2022 bid of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST).

In its order, the FST had allowed appeals of respondents namely Riazul Wahab and Surkharu Khan and expunged adverse remarks recorded by the countersigning serviceman successful their show valuation reports (PERs) and restored the appraisal of their show made by the reporting officers.

The respondents had joined the IB arsenic adjunct directors (BS-17) successful 2001 and 2003, respectively. They were promoted arsenic lawman manager (BS-18) and manager (BS-19) successful owed people for having an “unblemished and meritorious work record”.

IB’s entreaty against work tribunal’s determination successful promotion lawsuit dismissed

In Mr Wahab’s PERs, his reporting serviceman evaluated his show arsenic “very good” and “outstanding” and recorded him arsenic “fit for promotion.”

Whereas successful Mr Khan’s PERs, his rep­orting serviceman evaluated his show arsenic “good” and “very good” and recorded him arsenic “fit for promotion”. But their countersigning serviceman downgraded their show valuation to “average” and declared them “unfit for promotion.”

The respondents preferred departmental appeals against the countersigning officer’s remarks. The entreaty of Mr Wahab was not responded to portion that of Mr Khan was rejected.

Consequently, they approached the FST which allowed their appeals.

In his judgement, Justice Shah observed that supervisory officers should see, having respect to the temperament of the serviceman concerned, whether the proposal oregon informing fixed orally oregon successful written form, oregon fixed publically successful a wide gathering of the officers oregon privately successful a abstracted gathering with the acrophobic officer, would beryllium beneficial for the serviceman successful improving his performance.

It said the intent of counselling was to amended the show of the serviceman and not to insult oregon intimidate him.

The judgement said PERs were the astir important documents successful the work grounds of civilian servants, which assistance the competent authorities successful making informed decisions with regards to unit medication matters, specified as, enactment for training, appointments/transfers, promotions, confirmations oregon screening of civilian servants.

An officer’s promotion and retention successful work mostly depends connected what has been recorded successful PER. It is, therefore, indispensable that PERs are written by the reporting and countersigning officers astir cautiously and responsibly, the judgement said.

If the reporting oregon the countersigning serviceman is partial, his sentiment is apt to origin incalculable harm to the serviceman reported upon, and if a PER is ambiguous oregon carelessly written, it would not service the existent intent of signaling PERs.

Therefore, the reporting and countersigning officers should measure the show of the serviceman reported upon successful a detached and nonsubjective manner, the judgement said.

The respondents asserted that nary adv­ice oregon informing was ever fixed to them by the countersigning serviceman earlier signaling the adverse remarks and determination is thing connected the grounds of the lawsuit to controvert their assertion, the judgement noted.

In the contiguous case, it explained, the countersigning serviceman did not notation successful the PERs that helium had counselled the respondents for improving their show nor did helium warrant his departure from the supra regularisation of making anterior counselling earlier signaling the adverse remarks. He besides did not springiness circumstantial reasons for his disagreement with the valuation of the reporting officers, the judgement said, highlighting a gross usurpation of the instructions by the countersigning serviceman successful signaling the adverse remarks successful the PERs of the respondents.

Thus, the judgement said, the tribunal has rightly expunged the aforesaid and truthful determination was nary ineligible flaw successful the FST decision.

The contiguous petition is meritless. Therefore, it’s dismissed and the permission to entreaty is declined, Justice Shah observed.

Published successful Dawn, March 3rd, 2023