Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore vs Malik Riaz Ahmad Khokhar
This matter arises from a petition filed against the order of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore High Court, which accepted the respondent's service appeal and expunged adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (A.C.Rs). The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in expunging the adverse remarks given by the Countersigning Officer when the respondent had already been exonerated in the inquiry upon which those remarks were based. The Supreme Court held that since the adverse remarks were based on charges from an inquiry in which the respondent was exonerated, the material supporting the remarks no longer existed, and the Tribunal's findings of fact were unexceptionable. The Court further held that it lacks jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to substitute its own findings of fact for those of the Tribunal in the absence of any substantial question of law of public importance.
- Whether the Supreme Court can substitute its own findings of fact in place of findings of the Service Tribunal while exercising power under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can adverse remarks in an A.C.R. based on inquiry charges survive after the employee has been exonerated from those charges?
- What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance for the purposes of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMED, J. - Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 20.2.2009 passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore High Court in Service Appeal No. 6/2008 wherein the appeal filed by the respondent was accepted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned High Court had erred in law to expunge adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs, of the respondent without adverting to the basic principle that the Countersigning Officer's opinion must be given due weight over the opinion of Reporting Officer.
The Countersigning Officer had passed adverse remarks against the respondent after perusing the record as is evident from the remarks dated 4.12.2007 which are available at page 21 of the paper book.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.
4. We have given or anxious consideration to the contentions of learned for the parties and perused the record, It is better and appropriate to reproduce para. 6 of the impugned order:- "The remarks of the Countersigning Officer which were based on the charges whereupon the inquiry was conducted and the appellant was exonerated from the charges. The adverse remarks no more hold the field and these remarks were expunged. The material on which the countersigning officer has based his opinion no more exist."
5. Mere reading the aforesaid paragraph clearly envisages that adverse remarks written against the respondent in his A.C.Rs, were set aside in inquiry, It is settled law that parties are bound by their pleadings. The submissions made before us by the learned counjj1'^: the petitioner are not taken put from the written statement filed by the petitioner before the High Court. Even otherwise, it is interesting to note reply of ground 'c1 which is to the following effect:- "The Judgment dated 19.9.2008 is preexplanatory and needs no explanation on behalf of the respondent" ,
6. The said stand of petitioner is vague and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Service Tribunal had given findings of fact against the petitioner after perusing the record, It is settled law that this Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to substitute its own findings in place of findings of the Tribunal while exercising power under Article 212(3) of the Constitution as law laid down by this Court-in Khan Muhammad Niazi's case (1990 SCM R 1416), Riaz>ul-Haq's case (1988 SCM R 1994).
Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to raise any. Substantial question of law of public importance as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.