| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 2216 1989 SLD 2216 1989 PLC 473 |
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 131(L) of 1984 decided on 30th January, 1989.
CH. HASAN NAWAZ AND KH. ABDUL, JALIL, MEMBERS
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. 131(L) of 1984 decided on 30th January, 1989.
CH. HASAN NAWAZ AND KH. ABDUL, JALIL, MEMBERS
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Sardar ALI MASOOD RAZA QAZILBASH
VS
INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF (S&C), HYDERABAD and others
Law:
Section:
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)-- ---S. 4--Appeal--Competency of--No departmental appeal filed by appellant--Effect--Appeal before Service Tribunal without exhausting departmental remedy would be incompetent and hence liable to dismissal. Appellant in person. Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1989. JUDGMENT CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).--This appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is for the expunction of adverse remarks recorded by respondent No. 1 for the period from 13-2-1982 to 1-12-1982 in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant who had been working as Income-tax Officer, Survey and Collation, Hyderabad during the period under report. 2. The report said that he was unpunctual and an average worker with limited ambitions. The remarks of the Countersigning Officer were that on "one pretext or the other, Mr. Qazilbash (the appellant) often absented from duty and did not take interest in his work". 3. Only two main grounds were relied upon in support of the prayer for expunction of adverse remarks; First, the appellant did not serve under the Reporting Officer for a period of three months which was necessary to entitle him to initiate the report. The second was that the remarks were not justified even on merits, in view, of the fact that he had always been earning good reports before and after the report regarding the year 1982. A plea regarding mala fides of the Reporting Officer is also there, but it is not of any consequence and worth an analysis. 4 Merits apart, the defence in the main is that the appellant had come to the Tribunal without exhausting the departmental remedy and that the appeal was, therefore, incompetent under first proviso to section 4 of the Act. 5. It has been alleged in the grounds of appeal that "the appellant submitted his representation dated 26-12-1983 (Annex. B) to respondent No. 3" and that "though a period of ninety days has since expired, but no reply has so far been received by the appellant." As already pointed out, this fact has been denied by the respondents whose case is that no departmental appeal was ever filed for the expunction of the adverse remarks and thatβ¦
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