CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD SAEED ZAFAR and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had ordered the expunction of adverse remarks from the Annual Confidential Report of the respondent, Muhammad Saeed Zafar. The core legal question was whether the delay in communicating these adverse remarks to the civil servant rendered them invalid. The Supreme Court observed that the Countersigning Officer recorded the remarks on 3-10-1996, but they were not communicated to the respondent until 16-2-1997, a delay of approximately four and a half months. The departmental authorities failed to provide any reasonable explanation for this delay before the Tribunal. The Court held that adverse remarks must be communicated within a reasonable period, and in the absence of a valid explanation for the delay, the Tribunal correctly expunged the remarks. Furthermore, the Court noted that the matter involved an individual grievance rather than a question of law of public importance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that unexplained delays in communicating adverse entries vitiate their validity.
- Does an unexplained delay in communicating adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report justify their expunction?
- Is a petition regarding an individual grievance concerning adverse remarks a matter of public importance warranting interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 140-1997 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Appeal No,327-L of 1997.
2. The dispute herein relates to expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of respondent Muhammad Saeed Zafar, for the period from 1-1-1995 to 9-9-1995. It is an admitted fact that the Countersigning Officer recorded his remarks on 3-10-1996 and the same were communicated to the respondent on 16-2-1997 i,e, after a lapse of about 4-1/2 months. The representation filed by the respondent was not disposed of by the SGA&I Department.
Consequently, the respondent approached the Tribunal at the expiry of the stipulated period of 90 days.
3. It is well-settled that adverse remarks should be communicated within reasonable period. Here there was unreasonable delay in communicating the adverse remarks to the respondent. The departmental A authorities failed to explain each day's delay before the Tribunal. There being no reasonable explanation for not communicating the adverse remarks within the prescribed period, the Tribunal was right in not upholding such remarks and expunged the same. The same view was taken by this Court in the case of Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan and others (1996 SCM R 256). In any event, the dispute herein relates to an individual grievance and no question of law of public importance is involved warranting interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
4. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.