Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1520 1989 SLD 1520 1989 PLC 721
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No.93 of 1987, decided on 9th February, 1989.
DR. A. Q. QAZI AND MOBEEN AHMAD KHAN, MEMBERS

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

NISAR AHMAD CHARAN

VS

GOVERNMENT OF SIND and others

Law:

Section:

Civil service-- ---Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report-- Expunction of--Justification-­Civil servant's evaluation by Reporting Officer had been graded as average-­Advisory remark of first countersigning officer was thus to be read in the context of evaluation made by the Reporting Officer, on the specific aspect of civil servant's performance--Average remarks were not to be regarded as `adverse'-­Observations contained in A.C.R. pertained to such quality of head and heart which constituted `nature' and was not something which might change or deteriorate only for a shorter period--No adverse impression should thus be imputed from those observations--First countersigning officer's remarks being advisory in nature should not be regarded as `adverse' and thus would not warrant expunction. Appellant in person. Imdad Hussain Kazi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st January, 1989. JUDGMENT MOBEEN AHMAD KHAN (MEMBER).--Appellant Mr. Nisar Ahmad Charan, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sind Co-operative Housing Authority, Karachi has filed this appeal, seeking expunction of the adverse remarks conveyed to him by the Registrar Co-operative Societies Sind under his letter No. RCS/PA/73/1986 dated 31-7-1986. By this letter the remarks of the first counter-signing officer which were held as adverse by the Department for the period from 1-1-1985 to 13-8-1985 (7½ months) read as under: "Need to improve the quality of control and vigil over subordinates." The appellant who was not assisted by any advocate argued his case himself. Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi appeared on behalf of the Government. The main argument advanced by the appellant was that the observations recovered by the First Countersigning Officer find no support from the evaluation made by the Reporting Officer, under whose direct control and supervision, the appellant had worked. He further pleaded that his earlier A C R's are satisfactory and no adverse remarks of the above nature or otherwise was ever communicated to him during leis long service. He further pleaded that the observation/remarks of the First Countersigning Officer are vague in nature as no specific instances are quoted which…
🔒
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