Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 376 2018 SLD 376 2018 PLJ 100
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 4845 of 2016, decision & hearing Date : 30.3.2017.
JUSTICE (R) SHOAIB SAEED, CHAIRMAN
Muhammad Bashir Khan, Advocate for Appellant. Muhammad Sarfraz Malik, D.A. and Malik Nisar Abbas, Range Forest Officer/Departmental Representative for
Respondents.

ADALAT KHAN

VS

CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN ZONE, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS

Law: Punjab Service Tribunals Act, (IX of 1974)

Section: 4

Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (IX of 1974)-- ----S. 4--Employee of Forest Department--Served letter with adverse remarks--Rejection of Appeal by interested official--Countersigning Officer recorded adverse remarks against civil servant--Civil servant was informed about recording of adverse remarks against which he filed appeal before appellate authority, who rejected same--"No person can be judge in his own case"--Officer presently holding charge of conservator of forest was required to forward appeal to next higher authority but himself adjudicate matter--Order passed was biased/prejudiced, appellate authority could not examine/ review his own remarks passed in capacity of countersigning officer--Impugned orders set aside. Case remanded. JUDGMENT Brief facts of the case are that appellant while working as Forest Guard was served letter dated 25.03.2016 by Divisional Forest Officer, Attock with the following adverse remarks of Reporting Officer and Countersigning Officer on the Performance Evaluation Report for the period from 23.1.2015 to 31.12.2015:- "REMARKS OF REPORTING OFFICER PART-II Sr. No. 2 7 (a) Grade "C" (unsatisfactory) PART-III (a) Pen Picture Not Punctual REMARKS OF COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER Part-IV (iii) Reported to be corrupt. Part-V (a) A below average reported to be corrupt official." 2. Appellant filed Representation/department appeal before Respondent No. 2 which was rejected on 19.07.2016. Later he filed second appeal before Chief Conservator of Forests which was turned down with remarks that appellant has already availed the remedy vide order dated 15.09.2016. Hence, this present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that impugned order is against the law and facts, while passing the adverse remarks, the Countersigning Officer did not take utmost care and thus rendered the same without lawful authority. That appellant was never punished during his service career nor committed any misconduct during the period from 23.01.2015 to 31.12.2015. That adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer are incorrect and based on misconception, rather adverse remarks recorded by the said officer seem to have been passed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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