GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB vs Malik MUHAMMAD FEROZE and otherss
This civil review petition arises from a judgment wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed observations regarding adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) and subsequent exoneration from departmental charges. The core legal question pertained to whether observations made in a previous judgment precluded the competent authority from independently considering representations for the expungement of adverse remarks not directly tied to specific exonerated charges. The Court held that the previous observations safeguarded matters appropriately by limiting potential expungement applications strictly to those ACR remarks concerning charges from which the respondent was exonerated. The key principle laid down is that where an employee is exonerated of specific charges, representation for the expungement of related adverse ACR remarks must be considered afresh by the competent authority in accordance with the law, without being influenced by prior tribunal or court observations, and such authorities are directed to decide representations within a stipulated timeframe.
- Whether delay in filing a review petition can be condoned when the judgment under review was passed in the absence of the petitioner?
- Can a government employee seek the expungement of adverse ACR remarks based on an order of exoneration from charges related to irregular allotments?
- Is the competent authority authorized to decide representations for expunging adverse ACR remarks uninfluenced by prior observations of the court or Service Tribunal?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is barred by 60 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the judgment under review A was passed in the absence of the petitioner as at the leave stage, none appeared on behalf of the respondents and the civil petition was dismissed and leave refused. As and when the petitioner came to know about the judgment, this petition was filed.
2. In these circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay.
3. The petitioner feels aggrieved of the observations made by this Court in the judgment under review passed in Civil Petition No,418 of 2002 which are reproduced below in extenso:-- "The case of petitioner is that a charge-sheet was issued to him for alleged irregularities mentioned in the adverse ACR relating to allotments during his tenure from which he has been finally exonerated.
8. If that be so, on the basis of this order of exoneration from all the charges/allegations levelled against him, the petitioner may approach the departmental authority for expungement of said ACR which matter shall be decided afresh in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation or finding recorded either by the Service Tribunal or this Court in the previous judgment and if the petitioner would feel aggrieved, he may seek remedy against the same independently. Subject to above observation, this petition is disposed of as premature".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that apart from adverse ACR relating to irregular allotments, there were other remarks which were not subject-matter of the charge-sheet from which the respondent was exonerated; This aspect of the case has fully been safeguarded in the above mentioned observations made by this Court, for the respondent was allowed to make application for expungement of only those remarks in the ACR about which he was charge sheeted and exonerated and not others. As and when such an application is made, the authority has been fully authorized to examine the same in the light thereof. Respondent says that the other observations are dependant of those charges from which he was exonerated. It is not for us to decide this matter here. It is for the competent authority to decide if any representation is made by the respondent. If any representation is made, the petitioner Government is hereby directed to decide the same within ninety days thereof.
5. Subject to the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed of.