Dr. SARFRAZ AHMED vs PROVINCE OF SINDH R — 2025 PLC(CS) 1588 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. SARFRAZ AHMED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH R.13---Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr.5 & 8-A---Deferment of promotion---Grounds and conditions---Exoneration from pending charges/inquiries---Consequences and scope---Procedure, legal framework and scope---Regarding the deferment of a civil/government servant's promotion, R. 13 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation, and Seniority) Rules, 1975, allows for postponement if their seniority is disputed or undetermined, if they are on deputation, training, or leave, if disciplinary proceedings are pending against them, or for any reason other than their lack of fitness for promotion---In such cases, the competent authority must ensure that future disciplinary action against government/civil servants facing pending disciplinary and/or criminal proceedings is taken under R. 5 of Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and that these proceedings are concluded/decided promptly according to the law---It is understood that if the government/civil servant is cleared of the charges, they will be treated as per R. 8-A of Sindh Civil Servants(Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and R. 13 of Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation, and Seniority) Rules, 1975. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1588 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Dr. SARFRAZ AHMED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH Promotion, right of---Scope---Misconduct---Effect---Deferment of promotion---a fundamental prerequisite for promotion is a clean service record---This is the bare minimum expectation to maintain an efficient and transparent administration and safeguard public interest---an employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be considered equal to other employees and must be treated distinctly---When evaluating an employee for promotion, their complete service history must be examined---If a promotion committee considers penalties imposed on an employee and subsequently denies them promotion, such a decision would not be deemed unlawful or without merit within the principles of service law---a promotion cannot be automatically deferred solely for the pendency of disciplinary proceeding after two years---The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) must assess each promotion proposal on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant factors, including the employee's overall service record. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1588 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Dr. SARFRAZ AHMED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH R.13---Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 5 & 8-A---Promotion, denial of---Deferment of promotion due to missing Annual Confidential Reports by the department---Legality---Preparation and presentation of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), responsibility of---Duty lies with the concerned department, not the civil servant, as ACRs are confidential and remain inaccessible to the officer under evaluation---Delay in promotion while juniors already promoted---Seniority, computation of---Employee with delayed promotion to be deemed in same batch as juniors for seniority purposes---Scope---The petitioner was a doctor who joined government service in 1981 and became a senior officer in 1996 and was denied promotion in 2011 because his record reports (ACRs) for ten years were missing---It was the case of the petitioner that this was due to departmental negligence, which was not his fault, while his juniors were promoted, therefore, petitioner sought proforma promotion w.e.f. 07.07.2011 when his juniors were promoted---The issue for determination before the High Court was as to "whether denying the petitioner promotion on account of missing ACRs was lawful, and whether he was entitled to be granted promotion from the date his juniors were promoted?"---Held: The primary purpose of maintaining Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) was to determine an officer's suitability for promotion---This evaluation, beyond performance and eligibility, included consideration of any major or minor penalties awarded---The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), tasked with making the final promotion decision based on this assessment, must conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the civil servant's performance using a working paper prepared by the relevant department---Consequently, the responsibility for preparing and presenting ACRs lay with the concerned department, not the civil/government servant, primarily because ACRs were confidential documents inaccessible to the officer being evaluated---Legal requirements only mandated that officers be informed of any adverse remarks in their ACRs, allowing the man opportunity to improve their performance and address the identified short comings---Court typically lacked the specialized knowledge required for such evaluation assessments---Within its designated powers and authority, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) must evaluate each promotion proposal individually, in accordance with the law---In instances where a disciplinary case or criminal prosecution against a civil/government servant remained unresolved even two years after the initial DPC meeting deferred its findings regarding that individual, the appointing authority could consider granting an ad-hoc promotion, as per legal provisions---Government was directed to ensure that, in the future, prior to any meeting of the Provincial Selection Board (PSB) and/or Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened to consider promotion cases for civil/government servants, the relevant department must provide a complete set of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) of the officer in question to the PSB/DPC well in advance---This was to ensure that promotion cases were decided without undue delay---In the present case, petitioner was to be granted a proforma promotion to BPS-20, effective from July 7, 2011, the date his juniors were promoted---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Dr. SARFRAZ AHMED vs PROVINCE OF SINDH R — 2025 PLC(CS) 1588 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC