1983 PLP 129 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J. This order will govern Civil Petitions Nos. 202 to 205 of 1982. In all these petitions, the petitioner is Ali Gul Khan, a Senior Civil Judge, now on deputation as Registrar, Punjab Administrative Vigilance Commission, Lahore.

2. Being aggrieved by the common order dated 1st of February, 1982, in Service Appeals Nos. 343/144, and 346/145 of 1977, 207/660 and 208/661 of 1979 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, refusing to expunge the adverse entries, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal on the facts sufficiently stated in the petition, on the following grounds : ‑ (a) That the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) was in error to keep alive the adverse entries so recorded against him by his reporting officers in the background that he stood exonerated from two inquiries and as a result of the third inquiry which eminently pertained to the charge of corruption, not only he was exonerated but also re‑instated. (b) That the decision of the High Court rejecting his grievance was not legally justified as no reasons were given for denying him the relief. (c) That as the petitioner had served under two officers in one year, accordingly, the High Court was in error in not satisfying itself from the reports of both the officers about his conduct. (d) That the Tribunal was in error in holding that the cases in which he was exonerated had no identity with the adverse remarks in his A. C. Rs. for given periods, which were different matters and related to his assessment by his superior officers as and when they were required to report on him. (e) That the Tribunal was in error in holding that the decision of the Governor in re‑instating him in service did not ipso facto expunge all the adverse entries so recorded in his A. C. Rs. (f) That the Tribunal has erred in holding that the adverse entries for the period from 1973 to 1975 were justified as the petitioner has failed to shore that these were the outcome of malice on the part of the reporting officers or that there were good grounds to hold that the entries so trade against him were absolutely unjustified. (g) That the impugned A. C. Rs. are violative of the instructions contained in the "Manual of Instructions about Confidential Reports" read with Memorandum No. S. O. (5)/3‑12/64, dated 11th November, 1965, which went unnoticed by the Tribunal although it was brought to its notice. (h) That the Tribunal failed to consider the letter of Ch. Bashir Ahmed, District and Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, dated 3rd of June, 1974, addressed to the then officiating District and Sessions Judge, Gujranwaia, to the effect that he was not competent under the law to record the impugned A. C. Rs. as the petitioner's stay under him was less than three months. (a) That the Tribunal failed to consider the submission of the petitioner that the High Court was not competent under instruction No. 43 of the "Manual of Instructions about Confidential Reports" to withhold petitioner's representation against the impugned A. C. Rs. much less to dispose of the representation itself. As such the order rejecting his representation was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. (b) That the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the recording of the impugned A. C. Rs. was patently without jurisdiction and, there fore, any order passed on that basis was also a nullity. All other orders standing thereon also suffered from the same in firmity. (k) That the Chairman of the Tribunal had countersigned the impugned A. C. Rs. as a Judge of the Lahore High Court. Accordingly, he should not have dealt with the matter. 3 These contentions require consideration. Therefore, leave to appeal is granted to consider them. The appeals arising out of these petitions shall, if possible, be heard within six months on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any, Leave granted.