Adverse Remarks Effect in ACR's
PLJ 2013 · Peshawar High Court
This case is about Abdul Rauf Khan, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Dir Lower, who challenged adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2006 to 2009. These remarks, recorded by the Administration Committee of the Peshawar High Court, marked his integrity as "not above board," his overall performance as "below average," and declared him "not fit" for promotion. He appealed to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, arguing the remarks were communicated years late without explanation, no warning or counseling was given beforehand as required, and one committee member had not even been a judge during the relevant years. He also pointed out he had earned twelve good reports before 2006 and two more afterward, with no disciplinary action ever taken against him.
The Tribunal ruled in his favor, finding that adverse remarks—especially those touching integrity—must be backed by clear reasons and evidence, which the High Court failed to provide. It held that unexplained delays of three to four years in communicating such remarks caused serious prejudice to the officer, and that vague, unsupported adverse entries cannot stand. The Tribunal also emphasized that promotion should be based on seniority-cum-fitness, and denying promotion is effectively a punishment that cannot be imposed without proper charges and inquiry. The adverse entries were expunged.
This case matters because it reinforces protections for civil servants and judicial officers against arbitrary or poorly justified neg
یہ مقدمہ عبدالرؤف خان کا ہے، جو ضلع دیر لوئر میں ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ اینڈ سیشن جج تھے اور انہوں نے 2006 سے 2009 تک کے اپنے سالانہ خفیہ رپورٹس (اے سی آرز) میں درج منفی تبصروں کو چیلنج کیا۔ یہ تبصرے پشاور ہائی کورٹ کی ایڈمنسٹریشن کمیٹی نے درج کیے تھے، جن میں ان کی دیانت کو "مشکوک" قرار دیا گیا، ان کی مجموعی کارکردگی کو "اوسط سے کم" لکھا گیا، اور انہیں ترقی کے لیے "نااہل" قرار دیا گیا۔ انہوں نے خیبر پختونخوا سب آرڈینیٹ جوڈیشری سروس ٹریبونل میں اپیل دائر کی اور دلیل دی کہ یہ تبصرے کئی سال کی تاخیر سے، بغیر کسی وضاحت کے ان تک پہنچائے گئے، پہلے سے کوئی وارننگ یا رہنمائی نہیں دی گئی جیسا کہ ضابطے کا تقاضا تھا، اور کمیٹی کے ایک رکن تو متعلقہ برسوں کے دوران جج ہی نہیں تھے۔ انہوں نے یہ بھی نشاندہی کی کہ 2006 سے پہلے ان کی بارہ اچھی رپورٹیں اور