CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD SAEED ZAFAR and anothers
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the respondent for the period from 1-1-1995 to 9-9-1995 were expunged. The core legal question concerns the legality of expunction of adverse remarks due to a delay in their communication to the civil servant. The Supreme Court held that adverse remarks must be communicated within a reasonable period, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay by the departmental authorities, the Tribunal rightly expunged the remarks. The key principle laid down is that unreasonable and unexplained delay in communicating adverse remarks to a civil servant vitiates the same, aligning with established jurisprudence on the matter.
- Whether unreasonable delay in communicating adverse remarks to a civil servant justifies their expunction?
- Does a petition regarding the expunction of adverse remarks involving an individual grievance warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-10-1997 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 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.