Sh. BASHIR AHMED vs MUDDASSAR HAYAT and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court, wherein the petitioner challenged adverse observations made against him by a learned Single Judge in a constitutional petition to which he was not a party, directing that his conduct be placed before the competent authority for recording in his Annual Confidential Report. The core legal question concerns the validity of adverse judicial remarks made against a non-party without affording an opportunity of hearing, and the sufficiency of grounds for condonation of delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as barred by time by 59 days, holding that the explanation offered for the delay was unsatisfactory. The court further clarified that the impugned observations merely required placing the conduct before the competent authority and that the petitioner would be at liberty to seek legal remedies if aggrieved by any subsequent Annual Confidential Report. The key principle laid down is that delay without sufficient explanation precludes condonation, and observations regarding service records do not preclude statutory remedies against entries.
- Whether adverse judicial observations can be made against a person who was not a party to the proceedings without affording an opportunity of hearing?
- Does a generalized inquiry about a case from the court office rather than counsel constitute sufficient explanation for condonation of delay?
- Whether an adverse remark regarding police conduct to be placed before an ACR recording authority warrants interference when statutory remedies against the ACR remain available?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- The learned Single Judge of the High Court while disposing of a Constitutional petition in which the present petitioner was not a party made the following observations about him:-- "Before parting with this order I direct the office to transmit this order to respondent No:1 Inspector- General of Police, Punjab who shall ensure that the conduct demonstrated by D.S.P. Sh. Bashir Ahmed is placed before the competent authority at the time of recording his A.C.R."
2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said observations having been made without affording him opportunity of hearing filed I.C.A. Before the Division Bench of the said Court which has been dismissed with the observations that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the observations were not as harsh or oppressive as were being canvassed.
3. This petition is barred by 59 days. The only explanation given in the application seeking enlargement of time is that on 29-1-2000, the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the I.C.A. When he came to the High Court in connection with some other work and inquired from the office about the fate of his I.C.A. There is no explanation that after having filed the said I.C.A., he did not inquire from his counsel as in the ordinary course, a client will always ask his counsel as to what was the result of his case fixed before the High Court, therefore, we are not satisfied that sufficient ground has been shown for enlargement of time. Apart from this, the impugned observation merely was that the said conduct of the petitioner shall be placed before the competent authority, who is to record his A.C.R. And nothing else and if he would feel aggrieved about the A.C.R. If made in pursuance thereof, he shall be at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law which if sought, shall be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the said observations.
4. Subject to the above observations, this petition is dismissed as barred by time and leave refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Mehmood Khan Mahar vs Qamar Hussain Puri & 5 others 2019 MLD 249, 2018 SHC 805