GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus Malik MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others
This civil review petition arises from a time-barred petition filed by the Government of the Punjab against observations made by the Supreme Court in an earlier civil petition. The core legal question concerned whether observations made regarding the expungement of adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) based on an order of exoneration from specific charges adequately protected the government's stance regarding other uncharged remarks. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing and held that the judgment under review sufficiently safeguarded the matter by limiting the respondent's right to seek expungement strictly to the remarks concerning the charges from which he was exonerated, leaving other matters to be decided independently by the competent departmental authority upon representation. The key principle laid down is that departmental authorities possess the jurisdiction to examine representations for the expungement of ACR remarks in accordance with law, uninfluenced by prior judicial observations, particularly when exoneration covers specific underlying charges.
- Can a delay in filing a review petition be condoned when the judgment under review was passed in the absence of representation?
- Whether an employee exonerated from charges mentioned in an adverse ACR can approach the departmental authority for expungement of that ACR?
- Does an exoneration from specific charges automatically warrant the expungement of all remarks in an adverse ACR?
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J ‑‑‑This petition is barred by 60 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the judgment under review 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.
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 sad 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 dependent 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:
S.A.K./G‑196/SC Petition dismissed.