| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3589 2025 SLD 3589 = 2025 SHC 2066 |
Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, J; Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J
Mr. Haq Nawaz Talpur advocate for the petitioner Ms. Wajiha Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General Syed Meeral Shah Bukhari, Special Prosecutor NAB
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 19-A,25,27
Law: National Accountability Bureau Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS) Rules, 2002
Section: 3.24(3)(c)(i)
Law: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)
Section: 24-A
Summary:
The petitioner, a female officer at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), challenged the denial of her promotion from Deputy Director (BPS-18) to Additional Director (BPS-19), claiming the decision was illegal, arbitrary, and violated her constitutional rights, especially since she was senior and qualified compared to promoted juniors. Her promotion deferment was justified by NAB citing a minor penalty of "censure" and rules permitting a one-year performance monitoring period before promotion. The court held that a censure, being a minor penalty without ongoing stigma, cannot justify promotion deferment or supersession. The court directed NAB to reconsider her promotion within three months, applying relevant Supreme Court rulings that support her entitlement and reject the use of such minor penalties as barriers.
Core Points:
- The petitioner joined NAB in 2006, promoted to BPS-18 in 2013, and met mandatory training (MCMC).
- She was denied promotion to BPS-19 on December 31, 2021, though juniors were promoted.
- NAB justified deferment based on Section 3.24(3)(c)(i) of NAB TCS 2002 and Rule 7(d) of Civil Servants Promotion Rules 2019 allowing performance monitoring.
- Petitioner received a minor penalty ("censure") in August 2021, which NAB used as grounds for promotion deferment.
- The court found censure to be a minor penalty that does not create indefinite stigma and cannot legally bar promotion.
- NAB’s actions violated natural justice principles by deferring promotion based on censure.
- Court cited Supreme Court precedents rejecting deferment due to minor penalties.
- The petitioner’s right to information and equality under Articles 19-A, 25, and 27 of the Constitution was also highlighted.
- NAB was ordered to reconsider the promotion within three months without the censure being a barrier.
Law and Sections Table:
| Law/Rule/Article | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Article 19-A, Constitution 1973 | Right to information — petitioner’s request for Selection Board minutes ignored |
| Article 25, Constitution 1973 | Right to equality before the law — petitioner treated differently than juniors |
| Article 27, Constitution 1973 | Safeguards against discrimination in service |
| NAB Employees Terms & Conditions of Service (TCS) Rules 2002, Section 3.24(3)(c)(i) | Allows authority to monitor performance for one year before promotion |
| Civil Servants Promotion Rules, 2019, Rule 7(d) | Provides for promotion deferment if performance needs monitoring |
| General Clauses Act 1897, Section 24-A | Duty of public authorities to provide reasons for their decisions |
| Supreme Court precedents: | |
| - Jan Muhammad v. General Manager, Karachi (1993 SCMR 1440) | Minor penalties like censure should not bar promotion |
| - Auditor General of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ali (2006 SCMR 60) | Supports principle that minor penalties don’t create lasting stigma |
| Federation of Pakistan v. Dr. Muhammad Arif (2017 SCMR 969) | Promotion considerations ruling referenced by the court |
O R D E R