2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus Malik MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus Malik MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus Malik MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court, Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record with Mohsin Abbas, S.O. for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment dated 23‑7‑2002 of the Supreme Curt passed in C.P No.418 of 2002). (a) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. XXVI, R.2‑‑‑Review petition‑‑‑Delay of 60 days ‑‑‑Condonation of‑‑‑Contention of petitioner was that judgment under review was passed at leave stage in absence of both parties and after coming to know about same, he filed review petition‑‑‑Supreme Court condoned such delay in circumstances. (b) Civil service‑‑‑
Annual confidential report (ACR)‑‑‑Adverse remarks‑‑Expunction of‑‑‑Issuance. of charge‑sheet to civil servant for irregularities mentioned in adverse ACR‑‑‑Civil servant contended to have been finally exonerated of such charges including those which were not subject‑matter, of charge sheet‑‑‑Remedy of civil servant was before departmental authority to seek expunction of only ‑those adverse remarks in ACR, about which he was charge‑sheeted and exonerated, but not, others. Respondent In person.
Judgment & Decree
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 extenso:‑‑ ‑ "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 he has been finally exonerated. 8. if that be so, on the basis of this order of exoneration from all the charges/allegations levelled against him, the petitioner may approach the departmental authority for expungement of sad 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 is disposed of: S.A.K./G‑196/SC Petition dismissed.