LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE through Registrar vs K.M SOHEL, ADDITIONAL
This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Lahore High Court against judgments of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of suspended Additional District and Sessions Judges. The core legal questions centered on whether adverse remarks recorded outside the government's prescribed time schedule lose their efficacy, whether the High Court can vary such instructions to ensure the independence of the judiciary, and whether the Administrative Committee must provide a personal hearing to affected judicial officers before deciding on their representations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider these issues, suspended the operation of the impugned judgments, and, noting that the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal itself was in question, referred the matter to the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger Bench of at least five Judges.
- Whether adverse remarks recorded in an Annual Confidential Report beyond the prescribed time schedule lose their legal efficacy?
- Can the High Court vary the instructions issued by the provincial government for recording ACRs to advance the principle of independence of the judiciary?
- Is the Administrative Committee required to afford a personal hearing to judicial officers when considering their representations against adverse remarks?
- Does the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to set aside adverse remarks in ACRs on procedural grounds?
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Through this order, we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos,983-L to 989-L of 1999 arising out of the judgments passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal in the Lahore High Court, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos,2 of 1998, 3 of 1998 and 4 of 1998 filed by respondents K.M. Sohel, A.D.S.J. (under suspension) and Nos,2 of 1999, 3 of 1999, 4 of 1999 and 5 of 1999 filed by Ata Muhammad Naz, A.D.S.J. (under suspension), respectively, against some adverse remarks recorded in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for different periods.
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the following questions:--
(i) Whether the adverse remarks recorded beyond the time schedule prescribed by the Government of the Punjab through instructions for recording A.C.Rs, have lost their efficacy in view of the dictum of this Court in Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 SC 684) and Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Saeed Zafar (1999 SCM R 1587)?
(ii) Whether the instructions issued by the Government of the Punjab for recording A.C.Rs, can be varied by the High Court keeping in view the exigencies of service of person of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary to advance the principle of independence of judiciary?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the affected Judicial Officers should have been afforded a personal hearing in support of their representations and consideration of their representations in absentia by the Administrative Committee did not conform to the principle of audi alteram partem? And
(iv) Whether the impugned judgments were in deviation of the law laid down by this Court in Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 SC 684), Kh. Saeedul Hassan, Ex-Additional District and Sessions Judge v. Government of the Punjab through the Chief Secretary, Lahore (1994 PLC (C.S.) 113), Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v.
Muhammad Saeed Zafar and another (1999 SCM R 1587), F.Q.Matiullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. And 5 others (1994 SCM R 722), Shaukat Javed Farooqi, Under Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore v. District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and another (1999 SCM R 2141) and an unreported judgment of this Court in Civil Petitions Nos,1240-L and 1241-L of 1997, decided on 21-7-1998.?
3. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgments is suspended.
4. As the question with regard to the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal itself is in question, the office is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench comprising of not less than five Judges. The appeals be listed for hearing during the month of March, 2000, subject to the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice.