Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD ASHRAF YUSUFI Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR JAHANGIR and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that directed adverse remarks regarding inefficiency and shirking of duty to be recorded in the petitioner's Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.). The petitioner, a Magistrate, contended that the High Court's order was passed without providing him an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. The petitioner had been presiding over a case where an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was pending. The High Court, while directing the disposal of said application, simultaneously issued the impugned remarks against the petitioner's conduct. The Supreme Court, noting the delay in filing the petition, condoned the delay upon finding sufficient cause. Addressing the core legal question of whether adverse remarks can be recorded against a judicial officer without affording them an opportunity to be heard, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contention that the petitioner was condemned unheard. The judgment underscores the requirement of due process before imposing disciplinary or adverse administrative consequences on judicial officers.
- Can a High Court record adverse remarks in a Magistrate's Annual Confidential Report without providing the Magistrate an opportunity to be heard?
- Does the principle of natural justice apply when a court issues administrative censure against a judicial officer?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court, dated 22-12-1992, whereby it was directed that the remarks about inefficiency and shirking of duty be recorded in the A.C.R. Of the petitioner.
2.The petition is barred by 48 days. The petitioner in his application for condonation of delay has stated that he was not a party to the case before the High Court and had only submitted his explanation regarding delay in the proceedings pending before him. Neither the petitioner was present in the High Court on 22-12-1992, nor was he represented through a counsel, thus he was not aware of the order passed on that day. The delay is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.
3.The facts in brief are that respondent No,1 was challaned by the police and his case was pending in the Court of the petitioner. Respondent No,1 filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the petitioner, but as that application was not disposed of, he approached the High Court. The learned Single Judge in Chambers, while directing the Magistrate/petitioner to dispose of the application within two weeks, made the following remarks about his conduct:--
"The conduct of the Magistrate calls for censure. Application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved before him on 14-11-1991 and after hearing of arguments (oral, according to him, what he means by oral arguments, he must be a wise man to think of) the matter was kept lingering. He on innumerable dates of hearing adjourned the case for the complainant's counsel without realising that in criminal cases it is only the prosecutor on behalf of the State who is in charge of the case and the complainant's counsel via the courtesy of the actual prosecutor can address the Court. In this view of the matter, the case was unnecessarily adjourned and duty shirked. The remarks about inefficiency and shirking of duty be recorded in the A.C.R. Of the Magistrate. The District. Magistrate is also advised to have a look to his duties which certainly include the proper working of the- subordinate Courts."
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above order has been made without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and thus he was condemned unheard.
Leave is granted to consider the contention of the learned counsel.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments