1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---In this appeal, Mahmoodul Hassan Naqvi has sought expunction of the adverse remarks awarded. To him for the year 1988. The appellant was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad when the said adverse remarks were communicated to him by the D.O. Letter of Registrar, High Court of Sindh, dated 18th June, 1989. He preferred departmental appeal to the Chief Minister through proper channel, seeking expunction of the adverse remarks. He waited for decision of the said appeal for statutory period of 90 days but as he got no response, he came in the present appeal before this Tribunal.
2. ' The Government of Sindh and Registrar, High Court are made as respondents in this appeal. The written statement initially filed by the learned Assistant Advocate-General was presumably drawn up in the light of material he had received from the Registrar, High Court. It was disclosed in the said written statement that the appellant's representation for expunction of the adverse remarks which was obviously intended for the Chief Minister and was routed through High Court, instead of being forwarded to the Chief Minister, was considered and rejected in the Full Court Meeting held on 30-9-1989. Subsequently on 10-10-1990, the learned A.A.-G. Made a statement in writing stating therein that the aforesaid written statement was filed only on behalf of respondent No, 2 (i,e, Registrar High Court) and that as indicated in the letter received by him from the Services and General Administration Department (i,e, respondent No, 1). Since the adverse remarks impugned in this appeal had been expunged by the Chief Minister after taking into consideration the advance copy of the appellant's representation, the respondent No,1 did not wish to file any formal written statement. Despite this, the learned AA.-G. Prayed that since there was conflict between the stands taken by the two respondents, it would be in the interest of justice that the appeal was decided on legal as well as factual grounds. However, on 8-11-1990, formal written statement was also filed on behalf of respondent No,1 (Government of Sindh) duly authenticated by the Section Officer (Appeals) of S&GAD which was mere repetition of the learned AA.-G.'s statement referred to above.
3. ' We heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both the parties and also with their assistance went through the necessary record.
4. It would appear that we have to resolve the controversy between the two respondents as to the forum legally competent to expunge the adverse remarks earned by the appellant. In this connection we may first refer to the version of the respondent No,2 (i,e, High Court) as given in para. 5 of the written statement filed on behalf of the said respondent. As disclosed in the said para the appellant's representation for expunction of the adverse remarks was obviously not forwarded to the Chief Minister for decision but instead it was considered and rejected in the Full Court Meeting of High Court Judges held on 30-9-1989. Our reference was also invited to the D.O. Letter No, 568/CHC/Conf. 1990, dated 6-8-1990 written by Mr. Rehmat Hussain Jafferi to Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Assistant Advocate-General. The relevant portion of the said D.O. Letter reads as under: .There is conflict of opinion in the Administration Committee on this question. Minority view of the two Honourable Judges is that appeal/representation of District and Additional District Judge in respect of adverse remarks lies before Chief Minister as is provided under Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and in the Instructions about Confidential Reports issued thereunder, while the majority view of three Judges is that such appeal or representation is not competent either before the Chief Minister or Governor after it is disposed of by Full Court.
5. ' In such circumstances following majority views in the Administration Committee, appeals/representations of District Judge and Additional District Judges were not sent to the Chief Minister."
6. ' If the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No, 2 is read with above D.O. Letter of the Registrar, High Court, it would be clear that following the majority view of the Administration Committee of the High Court Judges, the appellant's representation for expunction of the adverse remarks instead of being forwarded to the Chief Minister for his decision was considered and rejected in the Full Court Meeting of the High Court Judges. On the other hand relying on para. 43 of the Instructions about Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred as said Instructions) the Chief Minister considered the advance copy of the appellant's representation and expunged the impugned . Adverse remarks vide written statement dated 8-11-1990 filed on behalf of the respondent No,1 (Government of Sindh)
7. ' The aforementiond controversy came up for our consideration recently in the case of Azizullah Shaikh, Senior Civil Judge v. Registrar Sindh High Court (Appeal No, 118 of 1989) which was decided on 31st October, 1990. The relevant portions of the judgment delivered in the above case are reproduced as under: "However, in course of his arguments, the learned A.A.-G. Brought to our notice that in the case like the present one, the Administration Committee of the High Court were divided in their opinion on the point whether the representations of members of lower judiciary seeking examination of adverse remarks be disposed at the level of High Court or be forwarded to the Chief Minister for disposal. According to him the majority view of the Adminitration Commitee was in favour of disposal of such representations by the Administration Committee, if the remarks were given by the District Judges or, as the case may be, by Full Court if the remarks were awarded by the Chief Justice. He further submitted that the minority view of the Administration Committee was, however, to the effect that all such representations should be sent to the Chief Minister for his decision. On such disclosure by the learned AA.-G., he was asked to show if there was any legal basis in support of the majority view of the Administration Committee. In reply he expressed his inability to produce or point out any such basis. All that the learned AA.-G. Emphasized was that there had been long- standing practice by which the representations of above kind were terminated at the level of High Court, instead of being forwarded to the Chief Minister for disposal.
8. ' Of course in absence of any law or rules, the practice followed in the High Court for dealing with representations of the above nature can be held to have some force. But that is not so. As stated above a comprehensive mechanism is provided in the said Instructions relating to all matters arising from A.C.Rs, awarded to civil servants. There is nothing to show that the members of the lower Judiciary are excluded from the purview of the said Instructions. In this connection it may not be out of way to point out some instances. For example the original power to transfer the Additional District Judges/District Judges vested in the Government but subsequently by a suitable amendment in the relevant rules it was delegated to the High Court. Similarly the Administration Committee of the High Court was given the status of Provincial Selection Board under section 6-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 for making selections for promotion to the posts of Senior Civil Judges/Additional District Judges and District Judges and as such the promotions to the said posts are now made by the Government on the recommendations of the Administration Committee. Recently by the S&GAD's Notification No, SOR.I (SGA&WD) 2/14-88 (Pt.II), dated 28-6-1990 the Chief Justice of the High Court has been declared as "Authority' for the purpose of departmental proceedings taken under Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Until then the said power was exercised by the Chief Minister.
9. Keeping the above position in view, we are of the considered opinion that in order to ensure independence of Judiciary it is most desirable that the representations arising from the adverse reports given to the Judicial Officers should be disposed of in the High Court. We may also venture to suggest that the representation against the report given by the District Judge may be decided by the Chief Justice and that against the adverse report given by the Chief Justice may be disposed by a Bench comprising three most-senior Judges of the High Court. Accordingly we would suggest that urgent steps be taken by the Government to provide necessary framework by making suitable amendment in the said Instructions. Until then, like other civil servants the said instructions will continue to apply to members of lower Judiciary. Consequently the representations against the adverse remarks given to the Civil Judges/Additional District Judges/District Judges are to be forwarded to their appointing authority, namely the Chief Minister for taking final decision thereon."
10. ' We see no reason to deviate from above decision and take different view in the present case particular when the point for determination involved in both the cases is identical. Accordingly we hold that the Chief Minister who is the appointing authority of the appellant had rightly taken cognizance of his representation for expunction of the adverse remarks and that the order passed by the Chief Minister, expunging the impugned adverse remarks was within the jurisdiction vested in him. Thus, the relief sought by the appellant in this appeal having been granted to him by the Chief Minister's order referred to above, this appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly it is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.