GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB vs Malik MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others
This civil review petition was filed by the Government of the Punjab against observations made by the Supreme Court in an earlier civil petition, with a delay of 60 days which the court condoned upon explanation. The core legal question involved whether observations regarding the expungement of adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) based on exoneration from specific charges adequately protected other remarks not subject to those charges. The court held that the previous observations correctly limited the expungement remedy only to the remarks concerning charges from which the respondent was exonerated, while leaving other representations to be decided by the competent departmental authority. The key principle laid down is that an employee may seek expungement of adverse ACR remarks tied to exonerated charges, and any broader representations must be independently examined and decided by the competent authority in accordance with the law.
- Whether delay in filing a review petition can be condoned when the judgment was passed in the absence of the petitioner?
- Can an employee seek expungement of adverse ACR remarks based on exoneration from specific charges?
- How should departmental authorities handle representations regarding adverse ACR remarks that are independent of charges resulting in exoneration?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH...J---This petition is barred by 60 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the judgment under review was passed in the absence of the petitioner as at the leave stage, none appeared on behalf of the respondents and the civil petition was dismissed and leave refused. As and when the petitioner came to know about the judgment, this petition was filed.
' In these circumstances we are inclined to condone the delay.
3. The petitioner feels aggrieved of the observations made', by this. Court in the judgment under.
Review passed in Civil Petition No,418 of 2002 which are reproduced below in extensor- "The case of petitioner is that a charge-sheet was issued to him for alleged irregularities mentioned in the adverse ACR relating to allotments during his tenure from which lie has been finally exonerated.
8. If that be so. On the basis of this order of exoneration iron- all the charges/allegations levelled against him, the petitioner may approach the departmental authority for expungement of said ACR which matter shall be decided afresh in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation or finding recorded either by the Service Tribunal or- this Court in the previous judgment and if the petitioner 'would feel aggrieved, he may seek remedy against the same independently.
' Subject to above observation, this petition is disposed of as premature".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that apart from adverse ACR relating to irregular allotments, there were other remarks which were not subject-matter of the charge-sheet from which the respondent was exonerated. This aspect of the case has fully been safeguarded in the above mentioned observations made by this Court, for, the respondent was allowed to make application for expungement of only those remarks in the. ACR about which he was charge- sheeted and exonerated and not others. As and when such an application is made, the authority has been fully authorized to examine the same in the light thereof. Respondent says that the other observations are dependent of those charges from which he was exonerated. It is not for us to decide this matter here. It is for the competent authority to decide if any representation is made by the respondent. If any representation is made, the petitioner-Government is hereby directed to decide the same within ninety days thereof.
5. Subject to the above observations and directions, this petition disposed of.