LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE through Registrar vs Mian MUHAMMAD
This matter concerns civil petitions filed by the Lahore High Court against judgments passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal. The respondent, a Civil Judge, had successfully challenged adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for specific periods in 1993 and 1994. The core legal questions involve the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to interfere with adverse remarks recorded by an Inspection Judge/Countersigning Officer and subsequently upheld by the Administrative Committee of the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Tribunal's decision conflicted with established Supreme Court guidelines regarding ACR recording and whether it was appropriate for a Tribunal comprising three judges to interfere with a decision rendered by an Administrative Committee comprising seven judges, including the Chief Justice. Pending final adjudication, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench of at least five judges to resolve the jurisdictional issues.
- Whether a Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with adverse remarks recorded by an Inspection Judge and upheld by the Administrative Committee of the High Court?
- Does the interference by a three-judge Tribunal with a decision made by a seven-judge Administrative Committee of the same High Court violate established judicial hierarchy or propriety?
- To what extent can a Service Tribunal review the merits of adverse remarks recorded in Annual Confidential Reports of judicial officers?
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Through this order, we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos,569-L and 570-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,7 of 1997 and 8 of 1997 filed by respondent Mian Muhammad Younus, Civil Judge 1st Class, Fortabbas, District Bahawalnagar against some adverse remarks recorded by Countersigning Officer on 11-12- 1995 in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the period from 1-1-1993 to 26-6-1993 and 1-1- 1994 to 30-4-1994, respectively.
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the following questions:
(i) Whether it was open to the Tribunal to accept the, appeal of the respondent relating to the adverse remarks recorded by the Inspection Judge of the Lahore High Court/Countersigning Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is in conflict with the guidelines laid down by this Court regarding recording of ACRs in the case of Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Rana Altaf Majid (1994 SCM R 1348), Noor Elahi v. Director of Civilian Personnel, Rear Air Headquarters, Peshawar and 2 others (1997 SCM R 1749) and Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 SC 684) reiterated in the judgment in Jahangir Goraya's case Civil Appeal No, 823 of 1990, decided on 29-11-1992?
(iii) Whether the impugned judgment is in conformity with the decisions of this Court in Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Saeed Zafar (1999 SCM R 1587), and Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others (1996 SCM R 256)?
(iii) Whether the decision rendered by the Administrative Committee comprising of seven Hon'ble Judges including the Chief Justice was liable to interference by the Tribunal comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the same Court?
3. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment is suspended.
4. As the question with regard to the exercise of 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.