NOOR AHMAD MIRZA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, through Services
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report by the Commissioner. The Commissioner justified the adverse assessment based on pending departmental inquiries regarding the attestation of a bogus affidavit and the alteration of a date of death in a case. The core legal question was whether adverse remarks could be recorded in an officer's confidential report during the pendency of a departmental inquiry, and whether such remarks should stand when the officer is subsequently exonerated of the charges. The Supreme Court observed the contention that the petitioner was ultimately exonerated in the inquiries and that instructions of the Establishment Division mandated that adverse remarks should only be recorded after a punishment order is made following an inquiry. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to submit a report on these submissions within six weeks, while holding that further examination was required.
- Whether adverse remarks can be recorded in an Annual Confidential Report while a departmental inquiry is pending against a civil servant?
- Does the subsequent exoneration of an officer in departmental inquiries render previously recorded adverse remarks unsustainable?
- Whether instructions of the Establishment Division regarding the procedure for making entries in confidential reports were violated when remarks were recorded prior to the conclusion of inquiries?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner is aggrieved by the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report by the Commissioner. He challenged the same by an appeal to the Service Tribunal but having failed there he has now moved this Court, seeking leave to appeal.
2. ' The learned Service Tribunal relied upon the comments submitted by the learned Commissioner while justifying his adverse opinion. The Commissioner, in his aforesaid comments, observed that the petitioner was facing an inquiry in connection with the attestation of a bogus and ante-dated affidavit while he was posted as E.A.C. Lahore. He has also referred to a case in which a person had died since long but the appellant (in that case) advanced the date of death by one year from November, 1981 to December, 1980, with a view to favouring certain persons who had no genuine case.
3. ' The Service Tribunal opined that in view of these concrete cases, which were cited by the learned Commissioner, the assessm ent made by him was justified.
4. ' Mr. Amjad Ahad has submitted before us that the petitioner was only facing an inquiry about the above two allegations but that he was ultimately exonerated in the inquiries conducted about them. He has placed on record copy of. Order No,SO(C)11-130/84 dated 15-5-1985 and the copy of Order No,SO(C)11-280/82 dated 29-6-1985 which are to the effect that the charges were not established. He has also drawn our attention to the instructions of the Establishment Division contained in Memo. No,9(4)/54-SE-III, dated 27-9-1954 on the subject of "Procedure for making entries of punishment orders in confidential reports" wherein it is stated that in cases where departmental inquiries are pending it is only after the order awarding punishment has been niade that an adverse remark should be recorded in the character roll of the officer concerned. The submission of the learned counsel is that in this case the above instruction was violated. He further submitted that if the above instruction had been observed the adverse entries would not have been recorded since the petitioner was ultimately exonerated in the departmental inquiries.
5. ' Call for a report from the respondent on these submissions. The respondent is directed to submit the report within six weeks.