| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4042 2025 SLD 4042 = 2025 PLC 293 |
Constitution Petition No.D-2701 of 2022, decided on 16th April, 2024.
Before Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ
Ali Asadullah Bullo for Petitioner. Kashif Nazir, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Ali Safrdar Depar, A.A.G. for
Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2024.
ABDUL SHAKOOR ABRO
VERSUS
PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN through Principal Secretary and 3 others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019---
----Rr. 7(i) & 7(j)---Revised Promotion Policy, 2007, Para. 1(b)(iii)(iv)---Deferment of promotion---Scope---Criminal charges against civil servant---Effect---Petitioner (civil servant of BPS-19) by challenging his deferment of promotion sought direction to the official respondents to reconsider his case for promotion against the post of BS-20 with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted---Plea of the petitioner was that he had been acquitted from the criminal case against him, and his deferment on the continual various grounds was no more in the field--Validity---Petitioner, un-deniably, was facing a NAB reference and he was acquitted under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C, by the Accountability Court in the Reference filed against him---If any civil servant was facing an enquiry, investigation, NAB reference, his case could be deferred---Reasons assigned by the Central Selection Board (CSB) on the said analogy appeared to be reasonable and did not call for deliberation---In the meanwhile the petitioner had also failed to earn Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) in the year 2021 and did not submit his assets declaration for the last about four years---Record revealed that the petitioner managed to retain his deputation with the Sindh Government despite the issuance of a repatriation letter issued by the Establishment Division as informed, but he remained adamant, as such prima facie he had defied the directives of the competent authority which action fells within the ambit of disciplinary proceedings under the law---Petitioner, admittedly, was considered for promotion in the CSB meetings but was deferred on account of many factors---Case of the petitioner for promotion was rightly deferred by the competent authority / CSB and such decision did not call for any interference by the High Court, however, his further deferment if any shall be subject to the ceasing of reasons based on which the deferment took place---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan---