Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1857 1991 SLD 1857 1991 PLC 138
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 631 of 1987, decided on 6th March, 1990.
MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN AND ABDUL HAMID KHAN, MEMBER
Ch. Sana Ullah for Appellant.A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD AKRAMvsSECTION OFFICER (CIVIL DEFENCE), HOME DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 othersMUHAMMAD AKRAMvsSECTION OFFICER (CIVIL DEFENCE), HOME DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others

Law: Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 

Section: 8

Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)------S. 8---Instructions for writing Confidential Reports---Refusal of proforma promotion ---Expunction of adverse remarks---Decision of not giving promotion to appellant in 1984 was based on his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1983 which contained a reference to a corruption case registered m 1984 in which appellant was acquitted----Departmental Promotion Committee in face of extremely damaging report which was also endorsed by Countersigning Officer, held, was within its right not to accept claim of appellant to ante-date his promotion---Appeal for expunction of adverse remarks and against refusal of proforma promotion was dismissed in circumstances.Date of hearing: 20th February, 1990.JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).--The appellant who is a retired Assistant Director, Civil Defence, has filed this appeal against the orders dated 26-8-1986 rejecting his representation for expunction of adverse remarks and orders dated 2-7-1987 turning down his request for proforma promotion. Both these orders were passed by respondent No. 2 (Home Secretary, Punjab). A case under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the P.C.A. 1947 was registered against the appellant on 18-1-1984 for accepting illegal gratification. While this case was pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala, the Deputy Commissioner/Civil Defence Controller, Gujranwala initiated on 10-3-1984 his ACR for 1983 wherein he graded him average on every count except integrity which he found `poor'. Under the column Pen Picture he described the appellant as under: "He is an average officer. Was caught red-handed accepting bribe Slow and dis-organised:" In Part VI of the ACR under the heading `Over-all Grading' both the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Officer/Director, Civil Defence, Punjab (Respondent No. 3) graded him `below average' and `not yet fit for promotion.' In his general remarks, the countersigning officer recorded as under: "I have no reasons to disagree with the remarks of the reporting officer pertaining to his integrity till the decision of the Court." This meant that the…
🔒
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