WAHEED ASGHAR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
The petitioner, an Electric Inspector, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, requesting the expunction of adverse remarks made against him in a previous constitutional petition to which he was not a party. The petitioner argued that these remarks, which suggested he had instigated the petition for ulterior motives, were uncalled for, issued without notice, and had prejudiced his service career by triggering departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court examined whether the remarks warranted expunction. The Court held that the remarks were merely tentative observations made at the stage of first impression during the dismissal of the petition in limine and did not constitute a positive finding of misconduct against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court determined that no case for expunction was made out, as departmental proceedings must be decided on their own merits based on independent evidence rather than on tentative judicial observations. Leave to appeal was refused, establishing that judicial remarks of a tentative nature, lacking a definitive finding, do not provide grounds for expunction or prejudice administrative inquiries.
- Can judicial remarks of a tentative nature, made without a positive finding, be expunged?
- Does an observation made in a judgment to which a person is not a party constitute a binding finding of fact?
- Should departmental proceedings be influenced by tentative judicial remarks made in collateral proceedings?
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner an Electric Inspector is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court dated 14th of March, 1987 with a view to get an observation recorded in the judgment/order whereby his service career as an employee has been seriously jeopardised expunged.
2. The petitioner was posted as Electric Inspector Gujranwala. He was transferred from there and instead Muhammad Farooq Siddiqui was posted in his place. A number of persons who claimed to be consumers of Electricity in Gujranwala filed a Constitution Petition challenging the posting of Mr.Muharnmad Farooq Siddiqui for various reasons. In examining the locus standi of those Petitioners the High Court made the following observation:- "It appears that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and have moved this petition at the behest of the Electric Inspector already posted at Gujranwala for some ulterior motive."
3. Ch.Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the petitioner was not a party to those proceedings. He had no notice of it. He had expressed no grievance on his transfer from Gujranwala. These remarks were not only uncalled for and without notice to him but have led to the initiation of departmental proceedings against him likely to result in penalty being inflicted. It is, therefore, necessary that they should be expunged.
4. The Constitution Petition in which the observations complained of were de was dismissed in limine. No positive finding with regard to the implication of t e respondent was recorded. Objection is being taken to an observation which is the result of first impression, tentative in character and only incorporating a likelihood and nothing more. The High Court could justifiably at that stage and in those oceedings make such an observation. An occasion for the petitioner could have arisen only if a positive finding to that effect had been recorded. That clearly was not done.
5. No case for expunction of the remarks is made out. The departmental proceedings, if any, have to proceed and conclude on its own merits and on the material brought out before the competent authority and not on these tentative remarks. Leave to appeal is refused.