MUHAMMAD MUNIR MALIK vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, S & GAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the expunction of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.). The petitioner, an Extra Assistant Commissioner, challenged the adverse remarks—specifically regarding his integrity and public conduct—arguing that he was condemned unheard and that no proper inquiry was conducted. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation and whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had correctly identified the appeal as time-barred and declined to condone the delay. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the contention that the petitioner was denied a fair hearing, noting that the petitioner had absented himself from proceedings using medical certificates, which the authorities viewed as a tactical maneuver. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that no rules or principles of natural justice were violated.
- Can a service tribunal decline to condone a delay in filing an appeal against adverse remarks?
- Does the absence of an officer from inquiry proceedings based on medical certificates constitute a violation of natural justice?
- Is an inquiry mandatory before recording adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--In the year 1981, Muhammad Munir Malik while working as Extra Assistant Commissioner, D.G. Khan was conveyed adverse remarks, "Below average; Is inclined to be arrongant; An officer of doubtful integrity and immature in his public contact."
2. ' He filed representation to expunge the adverse remarks entered in his A.C.R. That was rejected by the competent authority. He then appealed to the Punjab Service Tribunal. That was dismissed by judgment dated 3-7-1984. Now he seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal.
3. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. An enquiry was essential under the law but that was not held. According to the learned counsel, the judgment of the Tribunal as such was not sustainable.
4. ' We find from the judgment of the Tribunal that the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by time. The Tribunal accepted this position and declined to condone the delay. Nevertheless, it so appears that in the interest of justice the Tribunal examined the merits of the case.
5. There is no force in the submission that the petitioner had been condemned unheard or that no proper enquiry was held. The petitioner absented himself from the proceedings on the basis of medical certificate and the Commissioner was of the view that this was a manoeuvre by the petitioner to win over the witnesses. The Tribunal has referred to the conduct of petitioner in the impugned judgment.
6. ' We don't think that there has been violation of any rule or principles of natural justice. The petition has no merit which is hereby dismissed.