Secret Intelligence Reports Cannot Be Used to Deny Promotion Without Evidence.
 |
| 2025 PLC (c.s.) 555 |
خفیہ انٹیلی جنس رپورٹس کی بنیاد پر ترقی روکنا غیر قانونی قرار
مقدمہ کا پس منظر
عدالت کے اہم مشاہدات
فیصلہ
Must read Judgement.
2025 P L C (C.S.) 555
[Islamabad High Court]
Before Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, J
MUHAMMAD TAHIR HASSAN
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others
Writ Petition No.941 of 2024, heard on 9th December, 2024.
Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019---
----Sched. VI, Rr. 2(p), 4(5), 18(3)(b) & 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Promotion of BPS-20 Officer of Information Group---Intelligence reports alleging financial corruption---Mixed reputation and questionable integrity---Supersession---Absence of tangible material/evidence---Effect---Principle of natural justice, violation of---Contention of the petitioner was that the reliance on unseen intelligence reports violated his right to due process, especially considering his earlier "Outstanding" and "Very Good" performance record---Validity---Consideration of an officer for promotion was to be based not only on the relevant law and the rules, but also on some tangible material, which could be lawfully taken into consideration, thus, unless the opinion of Selection Committee was backed by some tangible material, it could not be said that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered in accordance with law---High Court questioned whether the Central Selection Board's concerns were based on personal knowledge or solely on the intelligence reports, demanding affidavits from CSB members---Identical nature of most affidavits raised doubts about their authenticity---One member admitted surprise at the intelligence reports, given the petitioner's performance record---It was found downright shocking for a system of justice to countenance a framework whereby an officer's career could be put in jeopardy on the basis of an intelligence report that was neither before his department before recommending him for consideration for promotion, nor was before the CSB members---Intelligence report were somewhat oxymoronic because there was nothing intelligent written in those reports---Court had been shown the reports while requesting for confidentiality, but nothing in the CSPR conferred confidentiality to such reports, and if any such attempt were to be made, it would be ultra vires the fundamental rights to information and due process under the Constitution, because no information could ever be confidential which adversely affected the civil rights of a person without confronting him with its contents with him being given due opportunity of making a defence---Principles of natural justice are to be read into each law regardless of being mentioned therein--- Central Selection Board, being a semi judicial forum, was required to examine the cases of officers justly and fairly---With respect to an officer, who had already put about 20 years of his life in service, one would expect, as a minimum, for such reports to be duly documented with evidence and adequate particulars of enquiries to gather that evidence---Such reports bore no authenticity in saying "reportedly" with reference to any serious allegation, especially when such damming allegations of financial corruption contradicted the service record and would stay in the petitioner's dossier, practically killing his career beyond that date---When petitioner was never confronted with any material evidence, how would he ever be able to defend himself, which was the most egregious breach of the fundamental right to due process under Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Central Selection Board's decision was completely silent as to marks allocable to integrity--Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Orya Maqool Jan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others 2014 SCMR 817; Secretary Establishment Division v. Aftab Ahmed Maneka 2015 SCMR 1006; I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041; Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503; Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others: in re 2010 SCMR 1301; Managing Director (Power), WAPDA and others v. Muhammad Luqman PLD 2003 SC 175; PIA and others v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others 2001 SCMR 934; Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director PIHC 2002 SCMR 1034; Orya Maqbool Abassi v. FOP through Secretary, Establishment 2014 SCMR 817 and Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary v. Abdul Matloob Khan 1990 SCMR 1431 rel.
Mahmood A.Sheikh and Yasir Ahmed Rathore for Petitioners.
Barrister Munawar Iqbal Duggal, Additional-Attorney General along with Yasir Arfat Abbasi, Assistant-Attorney General.
Manzoor Ali Sheikh-Additional Secretary, Sajid Mehmood-Joint Secretary (CP-II), Establishment Division.
M. Asim-Joint Secretary (Lit), Aminullah Tareen Deputy Secretary (CP), Jameel Shekih, Deputy Secretary (Litigation), Abid Mehmood Ch., Section Officer (Legal), Waqas Harral, SO (Litigation) and Muhammad Sultan, Section Officer (CP), Dr. Sohail Aftab-Director (Legal).
assisted by Ms. Sakina Bangash, Law Clerk.