Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 429 1988 SLD 429 1988 PLC 77
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Case No.377/808 of 1986, decided on 5th November, 1986.
S. ABDUL, JABBAR KHAN, CHAIRMAN, SARFRAZ HASSAN AND MIAN FAIZ KARIM, MEMBERS
Ch.Mushtaq Masood and Masud Ahmed Riaz for Appellant. Manzoor Hussain Bhatti, District Attorney for
Respondents.

SARFRAZ ALI SHAH

VS

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another

Law:

Section:

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)-- ---S.4--Adverse remarks--Appeal against--Countersigning authority recording "not fit for promotion"--Entries "better than majority of officers" and "fit for promotion" recorded but same changed to "equal to majority of officers" and "not fit for promotion"--Such grading, held, not adverse and was contrary to assessment as "not fit for promotion"--Officer reported upon (appellant) found to have been performing satisfactorily higher duties and having unblemished record--Service Tribunal, particularly due to performance of counter­signing authority in signing entries contradictory to each other at one and same time, directing expunction of impugned remarks. JUDGMENT S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Sarfraz Ali Shah, storage Officer, Office of the District Food Controller, Gujranwala, has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in Which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, as respondent Lahore, and the, Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore, 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks for the period 1-4-1984 to 31-12-1984, be expunged. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was communicated adverse entry for the period 20-5-1984 to 31-12-1984, given to him by the countersigning officer that the appellant was not fit for promotion. He filed representation against the same which was rejected by the Respondent No.l. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the very perusal of the ACR copy of which is placed on record, would show that the appellant, has been either assessed as 'A' or 'B' in almost all the columns of the ACR but nowhere he has been assessed as Below Average i.e. 'C', which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, would not be adverse to his performance. Similarly he has drawn our attention to the pen-picture given by the Reporting Officer and show that it was favourable to the appellant and at the same time has claimed that he…
🔒
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