| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 1843 2013 SLD 1843 2013 PLC 570 |
Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, KPK
Service Appeals Nos.95, 96, 97 and 98 of 2011, decision dated: 21st April, 2012
MIFTAH-UD-DIN KHAN AND WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Service Appeals Nos.95, 96, 97 and 98 of 2011, decision dated: 21st April, 2012
MIFTAH-UD-DIN KHAN AND WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ZAHID MEHMOOD
VS
PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR through Registrar
Law:
Section:
(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (VIII of 1991)-- ----S. 5---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973, R.2(1)---Institutions on "Performance Evaluation Report" compiled by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government, Paras 3.7 & 5.2---"Performance Evaluation"---"Annual Confidential Report"---Scope---"Performance Evaluation", could be termed as a system of making s about performance of officials of various levels by their superiors in order to guide selection and other personnel decision---Confidential Reports rendered by reporting officers, on the performance of officials serving under them, would constitute the most important basis of evaluation---"Character Roll Dossier" maintained for the purpose, contained a systematically prepared and carefully assembled performance record of the official concerned---Since the Confidential Reports would constitute an aid to selection for training, appointment/transfer, promotions, confirmation or screening of officials, it was essential that they were written most carefully---Officer, before he embarked on the report writing work, should try to comprehend the characteristics listed in the Confidential Report forms---Report should give a clear picture of the officer reported upon, unambiguously. (b) Civil service--- ----Adverse remarks, expunction of---In the present case, there were three types of remarks, firstly, regarding integrity "so so", which did not seem to be objective, but reflected ambiguity; no evidence was on record regarding the integrity of the employee, nor anything was pointed out or communicated to him---Secondly, regarding overall grading; employee was assessed as 'Average' and nowhere an 'Average' remark was treated as adverse; once an officer was graded as 'Average', he could not be denied promotion---Lastly, the employee was assessed as not fit for promotion, which in fact was the adverse remark---Validity---Promotion was always made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness---Seniority would depend upon the seniority list which was circulated annually, whereas fitness would depend upon different factors including, efficiency, performance,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492